On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:30:44AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Lars Wirzenius: > > > A compication in this is that even though the developers of a program > > would be happy with linking to OpenSSL, people who've written other > > libraries the program uses, or other code included in the program, may > > not be. I'm such a person. If some code I've released some code under > > GPL2 (only), and you link use it in a way that causes it to be linked > > with OpenSSL without asking me, you'll make me unhappy. I'm unlikely > > to sue you (life is too short), but I might grumble lengthily into my > > cup of tea. > > This is interesting. > > Do you hold the same position regarding newer versions of GCC (which > have changed the libgcc license to GPLv3+ (plus exceptions), which is > probably as GPLv2-compatible as the OpenSSL license)? > > On some architectures, libgcc is required for full “long long” > support, so it's not really optional even for C. I say I want people to ask before they do something that my licence doesn't allow. You want me to have an opinion on another licencing situation. I don't want to play this game. It'll just end in me asking probing questions about other people's tea preferences. Instead, I'll repeat that licenses shouldn't be violated. One way of achieving that is to ask copyright holders for additional permissions that are needed to avoid a violation. I don't like convoluted, controversial re-interpretations of legalese to achieve Nirvana. -- I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature