Re: Cryptographic software in main archive
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 10:58:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (Public followup since this'll probably come up again. Discussion should
> > probably go to debian-legal@lists.debian.org)
>
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 09:20:03PM +0100, Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:
> > > > * There are a whole bunch of GPLed programs that link against
> > > > libssl. This isn't okay, see the OpenSSL FAQ's response:
> > > > http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2
> > > > We've been lax about this in the past, we'll try to get this
> > > > right as packages are uploaded to main.
> > > 2. Can I use OpenSSL with GPL software?
> > > On many systems including the major Linux and BSD distributions, yes
> > > (the GPL does not place restrictions on using libraries that are part
> > > of the normal operating system distribution).
>
> > Sorry, this isn't precisely accurate on the OpenBSD folks part. The GPL
> > allows you to use this exception "unless [the library] accompanies the
> > executable" which it would if the executable were allowed into main. It's
> > the exact same situation we had with KDE/Qt.
>
> With this reasoning, the only other way it's legal to distribute
> GPL binaries linked against glibc and other LGPLed libraries (which
> are also distributed in main) is if those LGPLed libraries are
> distributed under the GPL, per section 3 of the LGPL. There is no
> qualitative difference between glibc and OpenSSL in this regard; if one
> must be GPLed to be linked against, then so must the other. And we
> can't distribute glibc under the terms of the GPL, because then we can't
> link any other /non/ GPL software against it.
Actually, under the GPL, Debian only has to be able to distribute the
separate software under the same terms as the GPL. In section 2 of
the GPL, it states
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every
part regardless of who wrote it.
So Debian has to distribute the library under terms that are identical
to the GPL. Since the LGPL is trivially convertible to GPL, Debian is
probably OK. Technically, Debian might have to distribute two
separate versions, one that is licensed under the GPL and one under
the LGPL. I think that the GPL is vague enough in this area that
Debian is just fine right now.
The OpenSSL license, on the other hand, is, AFAIK, not convertible to
the GPL. That is the problem.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: