On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:15:02PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes: > > Most upstream authors that I've spoken with don't believe that licensing > > crosses the shared library ABI boundary, that the shared OpenSSL library > > and the GPLv2 program that calls it remain separate works, and therefore > > there is no need for OpenSSL to meet the GPLv2 requirements since the > > binary as distributed is not a derivative work of both projects. Instead, > > the projects are combined at runtime by the end user, who doesn't have to > > meet any redistributability requirements of either license. > > The FSF is a notable exception to this. > One can create a shim library implementing the interface that does > nothing and also provide headers stripped of comments (including > parameter names). Then one can use that shim headers and library to > create a program that uses the given interface. > However none of the copyrightable parts of the library in question were > used during this process, unless the interface was copyrightable. Does > the FSF believe this? No, what the FSF believes is that you should comply with the terms of the license they've written, which states that you can only distribute a GPL binary together with the libraries it uses if those libraries are distributed under the same license terms, *because they say so*. The GPL requirement about dependency licensing does not rely on the legal definition of derivative works. So arguments that a GPL program that links against OpenSSL is not a derivative work of OpenSSL are missing the point. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature