Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL
Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> writes:
> On Sep 4, 2004, at 07:55, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>>> That sounds quite like "plac[ing] restrictions on other software that
>>> is distributed along with the licensed software."
>>
>> If curl-ssl is linked to GPLed programs by default, it's not mere
>> aggregation.
>
> But it's not linked to the programs. The programs would, of course,
> Build-Depend on libcurl and Build-Conflicts with libcurl-ssl. So the
> programs were dynamically linked to libcurl-nossl (or libcurl-gnutls,
> or whatever).
>
> We then distribute source under the terms of the GPL:
>
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the
> work for making modifications to it. For an executable work,
> complete source code means all the source code for all modules
> it contains, plus any associated interface definition files,
> plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation
> of the executable.
>
> The binary of FOO we redistribute contains the module FOO, of course,
> and maybe the module libcurl-nossl. We distribute the source to those
> under GPL 3(a).
>
> If libcurl-ssl happens to be installed by default, how does that
> matter then? OpenSSL is not a module of FOO because /FOO was compiled
> without it/.
But it'll link against lubcurl-ssl, which we also put on the user's
machine. It doesn't matter how complicated the contraption for
getting some program with libcurl-ssl and openssl into a shared memory
space on an end user's machine is -- it's still a contraption for
distributing that final work.
Debian will still have built a contraption that distributes some
program containing OpenSSL to an end user.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: