Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said: > > If both M and P were GPL with OpenSSL exception, but L were GPL > > without OpenSSL exception, this linking would be a violation of > > L's license?`By virtue of P linking to M and L and M linking to > > OpenSSL? > > I have been under the impression that the answer is no. You're not > linking L to OpenSSL. It could be argued that this was an attempt at > defeating the GPL if P was a thin shim layer between L and OpenSSL,
It doesn't need to be "an attempt at defeating the GPL"; I don't think that question is relevant. > but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that for our default MTA. That would appear to have even less relevance: whaetheer the program is a "Hello, World" or "our default MTA" wouuld seem to have no bearing on the question of its status as a derived work of OpenSSL. What's relevant is whether L is considered, under copyright law, to be a "derivative work" of those works it is linked with. If M and P are to be considered derivative of OpenSSL, I don't see the legal theory that makes L somehow *not* a derivative work of OpenSSL. -- \ "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. | `\ The pessimist fears it is true." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
