Re: Is this OK to get httperf back into main?
all of the copyright holders have agreed to the exception.
as for the rewording of the exception, I will have to check with the
people who provided me with the exception that I sent you. I won't be
able to get an answer to you until after July 4th.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> [Please CC me, I am not on -legal]
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:10:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:51 -0400 Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > > Is this OK to get httperf back into main?
> > Assuming that
> > * httperf is currently released under the GNU GPL v2
> It is.
> > * the only issue that bans httperf from main is its linking against
> > OpenSSL
> Aside from OpenSSL, it links to libc6.
> > * every copyright holder has agreed to grant a link exception
> I believe so. Martin, is this statement true?
> > * httperf does not include or link against any other purely GPL'd work
> > (i.e. with no link exception for OpenSSL)
> It does not.
> > then yes, it seems that an appropriate link exception would suffice.
> > [...]
> > > "In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders
> > > give permission to link the code of httperf with the OpenSSL
> > I think that an
> > s/of httperf/of this work/
> > would improve the exception, as it would apply even to a
> > differently-named modified version of httperf.
> > > project's "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it
> > > that use the same license as the "OpenSSL" library), and
> > > distribute the linked executables.
> > Following
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs,
> > the canonical phrasing suggests an
> > s/the linked executables/linked combinations including the two/
> Martin, would you consider the suggested changes?
> > > You must obey the GNU
> > > General Public License in all respects for all of the code
> > > used other than "OpenSSL". If you modify this file, you may
> > > extend this exception to your version of the file, but you
> > > are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do
> > > so, delete this exception statement from your version."
> Roberto C. Sanchez