Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:16:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> Again, it is more complicated. What if you have both a free and binary-
> compatible proprietory version of the os? E.g., is a Windows program
> linked against the Windows DLLs if users can run it with wine? What
> about Linux binaries that can run on Solaris' emulation layer?
When Microsoft(tm) is distributing a GPL program along with Windows(tm),
Wine doesn't enter into the equation. Microsoft is not allowed to package
GNU Emacs in such a way that it's intended to link against their
proprietary libraries.
The existance of less clear cases (such as an OS that includes both GPL-
compatible and GPL-incompatible binary-compatible library sets) doesn't
change the above.
> There is one big difference here: Word can not be considered a "major
> component ... of the operating system". OpenSSL can.
> There is no loophole to link against *any* proprietary code.
As far as the GPL is concerned, OpenSSL is proprietary. You're searching
for a loophole to allow Debian to distribute GPL binaries linked against
the proprietary OpenSSL.
> I think you'd better explain the intent of the GPL to them and ask why
> they don't sue Sun or Apple.
Their intent is clear. You're the one claiming that they should be suing
Sun and Apple as a result, and you're the one claiming strange things
about the GPL that nobody else agrees with, so the burden of asking them
for clarification rests on you.
I don't have time or interest to respond to everything. I'm not going to
waste time arguing about the FSF's intent if you won't even ask them.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: