Re: cadaver licensing issues: openssl and GPL again
Scripsit Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
> > against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
> > your GPL binary is not shipped together with your libraries.
> Hmmm, I see the wording:
> "unless that component [of the OS] itself accompanies the executable"
> Surely if your interpretation of this is correct, the *BSD projects
> could not redistribute GPL code linked against their C libraries,
Arent the xBSD X libraries under the two-clause BSD licence these
days? That licence is GPL-compatible.
> > Also, if the only barrier to relicensing is the presence of third-party
> > LGPL code, this is not a barrier at all, since the LGPL permits linking
> > this code against any other object files you choose.
> Can you explain why? The LGPL seems to have exactly the same restriction
> as the GPL about linking against components of the operating system.
The point is that the LGPL's *general* rule about derived works is
more lax than that of the GPL: The LGPL does not require the entire
derived work to be licenced under GPL, just that the user can plug in
new versions of the LGPL-covered part. Thus the "OS-component"
exception is typically not invoked at all in these cases.
--
Henning Makholm "*Tak* for de ord. *Nu* vinker nobelprisen forude."
Reply to: