❦ 29 mars 2017 18:11 -0700, Clint Byrum <spamaps@debian.org> :
>> 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.
As Carlos, it's hard for me to believe anyone will object to OpenSSL
linking, all the more when they implemented the support for it. Most
upstreams weren't just aware of the need to add an exception (or believe
this is not needed).
In some cases, we ignore the problem too (despite not doing a profit),
even in a case where the copyright holder may have a problem with
OpenSSL (because they would prefer people to use their own SSL
implementation). Here is an old example with Python (not GPL), OpenSSL,
GNU Readline (GPL, no exception):
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=498857
--
Write clearly - don't be too clever.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature