Re: GPL-3 & openssl: provide a -nossl variant for a library
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> The problem is that Debian is the operating system distributing the system
> libraries, and that all packages Debian distributes are *also* part of that
> same operating system.
Wrong: “*as long as*
your GPL binary is not shipped together with your libraries”.
Mere aggregation, which is what a distribution does, is not
“together”. The actual wording “unless that component itself
accompanies the executable” is even stronger. They’re not in
the same package. Most of the time, the (non?)gnutls openssl
wrapper is ABI compatible, even. The maintainers differ. Etc.
And it implements a standard interface.
> Where it is clear it is indeed a concern. Note that Fontana is both a
> lawyer, and co-author of the GPLv3.
And a RedHat employee. (I think Florian Weimer is, too.)
Also, it’s normal that someone has a rosy sight on something they wrote.
Note that the intent of the actual copyright owners counts
*much* more than the intent of the licence writers when
> You can disagree with the current debian-legal interpretation all you want,
> it is certainly not a consensus within Debian either. But, at the end of
Oh we could do a GR on it, like with the BLOBs before I became DD.
> And that is, AFAIK, the instance the ftpmasters decided to adopt.
They can change that or be overridden by a GR.
> Anyway, this thread likely belongs more on debian-legal than on
No, debian-legal is no body within Debian, just a random armchair
lawyer discussion list. But it may be Cc’d, sure.
«MyISAM tables -will- get corrupted eventually. This is a fact of life. »
“mysql is about as much database as ms access” – “MSSQL at least descends
from a database” “it's a rebranded SyBase” “MySQL however was born from a
flatfile and went downhill from there” – “at least jetDB doesn’t claim to
be a database” ‣‣‣ Please, http://deb.li/mysql and MariaDB, finally die!