[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#155721: psi: psi is gpl links to libqssl1 whose license should be modified lgpl therefore not allowed...

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:13:18AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:

> On 07-Aug-02, 09:42 (CDT), Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote: 
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 02:33:00PM -0000, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote:

> > > > If psi Depends: on libqssl1, then you have quite clearly stated your
> > > > intention to create a derivative work.

> > > > If psi does not Depend: on libqssl1, it is mere aggregation, and not
> > > > restricted by the GPL.

> > > What about Recommends:?

> > I think any package relationship that could cause package management
> > software we ship to pull libqssl1 in by default when psi is installed is
> > too strong.

> That's not a very useful distinction:

But I believe this is where the law would draw the line.

> whether or not Recommends and Suggests are automatically fulfilled is
> configurable in aptitude.

The question is whether our software will pull it in *by default*.  If
the user has to take some action in order for libqssl1 to be pulled in,
whether it's a one-time configuration of the packaging front-end or
manually selecting the library at install-time, I believe that's
sufficient.  (But IANAL.)

> Intent, on the other hand, may mean something. Obviously(?), if the
> package won't run without installing the questionable library, then the
> intent is that they be used together, and the license is violated. If it
> runs okay without it, but automatically uses it if present, then it's
> more debatable, although my personal opinion would be that since we are
> distributing the library, our intent is that they be used together, and
> thus we are back to a violation.

> I'd be a lot more comfortable is the user had to make an active decision
> to combine the packages (more than just installing libqssl1, as that may
> be pulled in by something else).

And that's fine, too; certainly we wouldn't get in trouble legally by
being cautious.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpSPcXONySs2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: