[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL's OS Exception (was Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs)

>>>>> "Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

    Raul> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
    Anthony> Note that the exception for stuff "distributed with the
    Anthony> major components of the operating system" doesn't apply
    Anthony> if we distribute both the executable and the libarary in
    Anthony> Debian. It probably does apply for third-parties, though,
    Anthony> fwiw.

    Raul> On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 06:12:40PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> I don't follow your reasoning here, possibly because you are
    >> summarizing a past discussion that happened long before I
    >> started reading this list. I don't propose that Debian use or
    >> attempt to use the OS exception--I think it would go against
    >> much of what we stand for. However, I'm curious and would like
    >> to understand why we couldn't use this if we were so enclined.

    Raul> The OS exception lets people other than the OS distributor
    Raul> distribute GPLed code linked against a proprietary OS.

This is not what the text says:

 The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
 making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
 code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
 associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
 control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
 special exception, the source code distributed need not include
 anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
 form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
 operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
 itself accompanies the executable.

I see nothing in that that applies differently to the OS than to
others.  I do now understand how a sufficiently broad interpretation
of accompanies that executable could prevent us from  using this  for SSL.

Reply to: