Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:40:00PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > Huh? Are you claiming that the OS exception doesn't allow linking against
> > > GPL-incompatible system libraries?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:16:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It's meaningless to ask that question without specifying who is doing
> > the linking and who provided those libraries. The answer is different
> > depending on who...
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:53:49PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Microsoft creates a system library, MSVCRT (Microsoft Visual C runtime),
> which is used by almost all binaries which run on Windows. It's GPL-
> incompatible.[1]
This case is largely irrelevant unless we'll distribute a version of
emacs with MSVCRT in its depend tree.
> John creates Emacs.
>
> I compile Emacs in VC, to run in Windows. The result is a binary which
> uses an GPL-incompatible system C library.
>
> I believe the OS exception in the GPL allows me to distribute that binary,
> but disallows Microsoft from distributing it along with Windows.
>
> You claim that linking against that library counts as "accompanies", which
> would prohibit the above.
In the context of that exception, a distinction has already been drawn
to distinguish between stuff that comes with the system and the rest of
the program.
It's a mistake to claim that the exception applies to the rest of the
license just because it uses some of the same words, not arranged the
same way.
> (On careful re-reading of the exception, I'm not completely sure whether
> the exception allows this or not: it exempts me from needing to provide source
> for those libraries, but I'm not sure if it exempts it from compatibility.
> I'll probably ask the FSF, since this is a critical question.)
It's the source code which needs to be licensed under the terms of the
GPL -- since that exception sometimes excludes some system stuff from
the source code, the excluded stuff doesn't need to be licensed under
the terms of the GPL.
> Regardless of that, if linking counts as "accompanies", this exception
> would be a complete no-op, and you'd have to distribute the glibc source
> along with every GPL application that links against glibc.
A word used with conditions attached has a more specific meaning than
the same word used without those conditions attached.
--
Raul
Reply to: