Re: libreadline
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 09:18:24AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Glenn Maynard <g_dlegal@zewt.org> [020507 22:48]:
> > > I don't think there is one solution for this, we should look at each
> > > module seperately to see how to solve the problem. IMHO free, GPL
> > > incompatible licenses are only annoying.
> >
> > On the other hand, GPL-licensed libraries are also annoying. It's both
> > ends that cause this kind of problem: libraries using the GPL instead of
> > the LGPL, and GPL-incompatible programs that want to use them.
>
>
> I think one has to distinguish here: GPL-libraries that have something
> unique, so that anyone wants to use the, are good to be GPLed as they
> push GPL-compatible licences.
>
> What I think is the annoying part of the OpenSSL<->GnuTls problem is
> that OpenSSL is the bad guy, so it would be better to have the free
> replacement making concessions to nasty program licences (i.e.
> GPL incompatible) to get an stable standard library for this
> more and more important part, that GPL-programs can use.
>
> With having the free replacement licenced this strict, one only
> archieves that the standard-library for encryption keeps beeing
> OpenSSL, thus shooting GPLed software in the foot.
Only if one things the GPL is the best possible license. Since Debian has
a policy of considering all DFSG-free licenses to be equal (in that they
are free, and there is no 'freeness' comparison which can be agreed upon
by the project as a whole), it remains an annoying conflict between the
fact that the library is GPLed instead of LGPLed, and the advertising
requirement of the OpenSSL license.
Since it is clear that we have asked both sides to consider relaxing the
situation which causes conflict, and both sides have said 'no', there
isn't a lot we can do about it, except work to ensure that our users can
still use the software in some reasonable fashion. Which is a pity, because
I think it serves nobody's interest except the curmudgeons, when free
software starts infighting to the point that it prevents the users from
being able to make the best use of it.
Unfortunately, this does mean that the only workable answer is probably
to inspect modules invidividually, irrespective of whether the licenses
'annoy' us or not.
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: