Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> schrieb/wrote:
> >> If we follow this interpretation, this means that you can't distribute
> >> an closed source OS with GPL tools. IMO, this was not the intention of
> >> the GPL authors. If you have to distribute the component with the GPL
> >> software, this is a sign that it's not universally available on the
> >> operating system. However, if you are distributing an OS...
>
> > That was *exactly* the intent of the GPL authors: to prevent Sun from
> > distributing the GNU tools with Solaris. They do distribute them
> > separately.
>
> They did. Solaris 9 reportedly comes with GNU tools (I can't check it
> myself because I don't have a machine running Solaris).
>
> I can't find anything on the FSF's homepage that says you can't distri-
> bute GNU tools with non-GPL operating systems. Further, I can't find an
This is all irrelevant. The issue is that you can't distribute GPL binaries
*linked against* GPL-incompatible libraries.
A vendor can't distribute a GPL binary for its operating system if its libc,
or any other library used by the GPL binary, is GPL-incompatible.
(It doesn't care at all about software it's packaged with but does not
link against.)
The operating system clause makes an exception for this, but it's not
available when the program is packaged along with the libraries. It's
intended to make software under the GPL usable on proprietary systems;
otherwise, for example, GPL applications could never be used on Windows.
(That wouldn't be in the interests of free software; it'd be much more
damaging to the GPL application than to Microsoft.) Debian distributes
everything together, so it can never use this exception.
It is *not* intended to allow OS vendors (Microsoft, Debian) to link GPL
applications against whatever proprietary code (such as Word or OpenSSL,
which are both "proprietary" as far as the GPL is concerned) they wish.
The "accompanies the executable" restriction exists to close this loophole.
This is all very well known to be fundamental to the intent of the GPL.
If you want to convince us that the intent is actually different, you
should start by asking licensing@fsf.org. If you can't convince anyone
that the intent is different, then arguing that the license is different
is merely searching for loopholes, which Debian won't exploit.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: