Re: System libraries and the GPLv2
Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 05:08:24 +0200:
> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04 +0200:
> >> On 30/03/17 00:24, Philipp Kern wrote:
> >>> On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> >>>> So, the best case situation (IMHO) would be that a lawyer tell us that
> >>>> Apache 2.0 is also compatible with GPLv2-only, and that we stop playing
> >>>> the game of being amateur lawyers instead of software developers.
> >>>
> >>> But that's not how the law works in the US. Without actual litigation
> >>> and precedent, the most you'll get is a risk assessment of getting sued
> >>> and your likelihood of winning if so. :)
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards and IANAL
> >>> Philipp Kern
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Right. That is how it also works in Spain, and I suspect that in many
> >> other countries work the same way.
> >>
> >> I understand that Debian wants to take a position of zero (or minimal)
> >> risk, and I also understand the desire to respect the interpretation of
> >> the FSF about the GPL (they don't think this two licenses are compatibles).
> >>
> >
> > I believe that this is a fundamental difference between RedHat and Debian.
> >
> > RedHat is going to do everything within the law and inside their values
> > for a profit. Their values don't include a strict adherence to the wishes
> > of copyright holders, but strict adherence to the law.
> >
> > But our values do include respect for copyright holder rights. So while
> > we can probably get away with this legally, it's been decided (a few
> > times?) that without the GPL licensor's consent, we can't in good faith
> > produce a combination of OpenSSL and a GPL program.
> >
>
> Just a simple question:
>
> Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL
> program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program
> to be used along with OpenSSL, when they where the ones implementing
> support for using it on the first place?
Of course not! Personally I believe implementing an OpenSSL interface
is a de facto exception grant.
Reply to: