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

Re: openssl and GPL

Thanks for everyones responses.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 11:09:21AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It is OK to create GPL binaries linked against OpenSSL and compiled
> for Debian platforms, and distribute them outside of Debian.  But the
> wording of the GPL indicates you could never distribute those binaries
> with Debian -- not even selling them on different CDs in a multi-CD set,
> I think.

What if a program (lets say it has a new bsd license) is linked against
both libreadline and openssl. Would this be ok?

> Not exactly.  If you link a GPLed program against a defined ABI that has
> both GPL-compatible and GPL-incompatible implementations, you have not
> violated the terms of the GPL; however, if you provide binaries, you
> must provide complete source code to *the exact binaries that you are
> distributing*, which under the GPL includes any libraries that are
> linked in.  Thus, the violation comes specifically from distributing
> binaries of GPLed programs without distributing all the dependent
> libraries under the same terms.  If you want to distribute the Heimdal
> libraries (Y) /without/ linking them against OpenSSL, and link GPL
> programs (X) against that, and distribute them together, then you're ok.

Actually, I checked this, and no, I am not OK. If Heimdal doesn't
use Openssl, it uses its internal libdes instead, and that code
comes from.... guess who??? Eric Young. So, this whole discussion it
interesting, but has no real significance in the context of Heimdal
(unless you want to write your own libdes).

(I have his copyright in heimdal*/copyright even though the debian
package doesn't use his library - should I remove it? ie. is the
copyright file for the source or the binary package?)

> No moreso than most legal documents, IMHO, and a good deal less so than
> many. ;)  As a programmer/linguist, I find the GPL rather aesthetically
> pleasing.  Maybe I wouldn't find it so pleasing if I were a lawyer. 
> <shrug> :)

I think it must be vague, otherwise you wouldn't have people like
OpenSSL come up with a completely different interpretation...
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: