On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:23:25 -0400 Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:37:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:28:46 -0400 Richard Fontana wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > This, I would say, encapsulates the real Fedora/Red Hat position on > > > this issue to the extent there is one. It assumes that the intent of > > > the copyright holders can be determined from their actions. > > > > What about programs that link both with OpenSSL and with a > > third party purely-GPL-licensed library? > > I don't think that would change anything, but maybe I'm overlooking > something. I think the outcome would change significantly. The copyright holders of the purely-GPL-licensed library (e.g. readline) have never granted any linking exception, explicitly or implicitly. They are not the ones who implemented support for OpenSSL in the program. Other developers designed and implemented the program, which links with the purely-GPL-licensed library and with OpenSSL at the same time. In this scenario, you can determine the intent of the program copyright holders, but what you need is a linking exception from the purely-GPL-licensed library copyright holders, not from the program copyright holders! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpAyuEaQrw8J.pgp
Description: PGP signature