On Sep 11, 2004, at 00:29, Raul Miller wrote:
In that context, there are cases where Debian is distributing a program
where some of the source is GPL licensed, and some of the source has
more restrictive terms.
Let me repeat my more Debian-relevant point, that was somehow glossed
over. This is copied verbatim from the message:
I wrote:
(a) Being in the same shared memory space is not a sane criterion for
being a module contained in a program. For example, _everything_
runs in a shared address space on, e.g., Mac OS 9.x and earlier. The
same applies to various embedded platforms (does it apply to
uClinux, I wonder?)
I propose that a requisite of BAR being a module contained in FOO is
that FOO in some way use BAR. If we use this test, it has been stated
that in this particular case the program does not ever make use of
OpenSSL. Thus FOO in no way uses BAR.
And, to reiterate, GPL (3) defines complete source code for executables
as "... all the source code for all modules it contains...." So if FOO
doesn't contain BAR, then we aren't required by FOO's license to
distribute BAR's source code.
