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

Re: cadaver licensing issues: openssl and GPL again

On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > 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.  Debian
> > > does not make this distinction; unless we were to make a new gpl-non-ssl
> > > archive section, everything that we ship in main is part of a single OS
> > > and is shipped together.
> > 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, which
> > they currently do with GCC and more?
> The current generation of BSD system libraries are all licensed in a
> GPL-compatible manner (BSD license w/o advertising clause).

OK, bad example. Better examples are that Solaris ships with gzip, or
BSD/OS ships with gcc, emacs, and so on....  Aren't those GPL


Reply to: