Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: Gaim-Encryption plugin violates Gaim's license

[Luke Schierer <lschiere@users.sf.net>]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:25:32AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 06:21:55AM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote:
> 
> > As a preamble if I just gatecrashed your mailbox or mailing list without
> > warning, I am the Debian package maintainer for Gaim, as well as a
> > frequent contributor to upstream development. I have just found out
> > today that the Gaim-Encryption plugin for Gaim, which can be found at
> > http://gaim-encryption.sourceforge.net/, makes use of the OpenSSL
> > library, and loads it into the same process space as Gaim.
> 
> > Due to OpenSSL's four-clause BSD license (ie with the advertising clause),
> > it is therefore in violation of Gaim's GPL license because the OpenSSL
> > licence places an extra restriction beyond those allowable by the GPL.
> > The Debian project will not distribute code of this nature, especially
> > given that several Gaim developers (myself included) agree with the Debian
> > project's position on this, and this message constitutes us contacting
> > other distributors and the plugin author with this information.
> 
> It should be noted that this can only be a violation of the GPL if
> someone is distributing the encryption plugin in binary form.  (Does
> Gentoo distribute binaries of this software?)  It is generally held that
> it would also *not* be a violation of the GPL if you distribute the
> encryption module in isolation, only if you distribute it together with
> binaries of gaim itself.

gentoo distributes source that is automatically compiled. but the other 
group mentioned, f*, i forget the name, distributes rpms, thus binaries.

> 
> Given that you have explicitly said you don't have access to all
> contributors to effect I license change, I presume this means gaim is
> under the canonical GPL license, and that you are not attempting to
> promote an alternative, overbroad interpretation of the GPL with your
> statements above.

correct, we are not changing our license, and are using the canonical 
GPL.

> 
> > For misinformation, read the OpenSSL FAQ which claims that OpenSSL is
> > shipped with most operating systems and therefore falls under the GPL's
> > exception for OS components. I interpret this to mean the kernel and
> > shell, and libraries inbetween, and because it is specifically named in
> > the GPL text, the compiler. It is certainly very easy to install Debian
> > or any other distro without OpenSSL being present. The same is also
> > doubtlessly true for any number of non-Linux platforms, not least Windows,
> > where both Gaim and Gaim-Encryption are available in binary form, and
> > OpenSSL is certainly not part of the OS!
> 
> To be precise, you cannot take advantage of the GPL's "OS exemption" if
> your product is the OS.

this is partly in reply to a bug which requested that we distribute this 
in the deibian package, which would, like the rpm, be a violation.
luke


-- 
-This email is made of 100% recycled electrons.