Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On 10-08-2004 11:24, "Glenn Maynard" <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>> For the record, this is my opinion:
>> If indeed, if I am ONLY distributing netatalk binary, linked to OpenSSL, but
>> no including OpenSSL. Then I have a program able to talk to OpenSSL is
>> present. However, it can just as well work without it (as long as I don't
>> use the features it requires OpenSSL for). So because of that, I'd say that
>> this makes netatalk a standalone work.
>
> I don't buy that you can circumvent the GPL simply by taking GPL code, pushing
> it into a loadable module, making your proprietary code use it, and making
> them two separate downloads: "I can't distribute these together; in order to
> get around the GPL, you'll have to download and install these separately."
You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take
propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use
it, and make them into two seperate downloads.
Because THAT is what I wish, what you describe (which, as I understand now,
is indeed not allowed by the GPL).
As a side-note. What I want is already common practice. In particular this
is what happens in kernel development. The GNU/Linux kernel is GPL-licenced,
while a lot of hardware drivers (the loadable modules) have non-GPL
compatible licences.
Maybe I need to ask this question on one of the GNU lists.
>> [Argument that GPL violates rule #9 of the DFSG snipped]
>
> The GPL is placing restrictions on software that it's combined with; the
> restriction is unrelated to what it is "distributed along with".
OK. I was probably wrong there. "combined with" and "distributed along with"
are two different things. Maybe my argument holds if I refine it, but
honestly, I really hope not to prove that, so I let that rest. Thanks for
the counter-argument.
> ['Silly' requirements in the OpenSSL licenced pointed out]
>
> I'm not arguing that the license isn't free; just that the GPL isn't the
> only license placing annoying restrictions here.
I agree. Thanks.
I guess it is just that in my limited vision, GPL was 'top of the bill' and
was great because it 'allowed free software'. I now realise that things are
not as black and white. I may come over it. :-)
But I will probably use LGPL (or the MIT licence you mentioned) for my
projects in the future.
Regards,
Freek Dijkstra
(who never thought that a good argument about laws and licence could be
this exciting)
Reply to: