Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 07:31:13PM -0400, I wrote:
> In the context of that exception, a distinction has already been drawn
> to distinguish between stuff that comes with the system and the rest of
> the program.
>
> It's a mistake to claim that the exception applies to the rest of the
> license just because it uses some of the same words, not arranged the
> same way.
Since I messed up on part of my argument, I figured I should revisit
this statement too.
The GPL uses forms of the word "accompany" four times.
In the first three, it's requiring that something accompany the binary.
In the last case it's prohibiting certain things from accompanying
the binary.
The sorts of conditions you need to guarantee accompaniment happens
(what you need in the first three cases) are different from the sort of
condition you need to guarantee that something doesn't accompany.
In particular, the absence of a guarantee is not a guarantee of absence.
--
Raul
Reply to: