Re: Cryptographic software in main archive
* Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> [020326 01:06]:
> Although the LGPL allows someone to redistribute
> affected code under the GPL, by itself it does NOT allow you to
> simultaneously distribute that code under both the LGPL and the GPL;
Why? When you are allowed to distribute under GPL and you are allowed
to distribute under LGPL, then you are allowed to do both.
> > The OpenSSL license, on the other hand, is, AFAIK, not convertible to
> > the GPL. That is the problem.
>
> That much is certain. I just don't think that legally, LGPLed libraries
> look any different than OpenSSL libraries under the GPL. Granted, just
> because there's precedent doesn't mean we should start violating the GPL
> deliberately; rather, I was hoping someone would come through with a
> loophole that says the normal-system-components exemption would apply.
LGPL and OpenSSL are in my eyes an huge difference: The LGPL allows
everything the GPL allowes, while the OpenSSL licence does not.
If code I contributed[1] under the GPL would be merged with LGPL code,
then I would say I allowed it. When merging with OpenSSL licensed
code I might go to court, because I did not allow it in my eyes by
putting under the GPL.
Before somebody mentions it: I know the additional conditions have
nothing to do with copyright, but additional conditions are additional
conditions. And as long as they are required to fullfit the licence,
they are not allowed.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1]: There is not that much, so my opinion might not be that important.
--
There is no freedom to own weapons, as there is no freedom to
kill people.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: