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

Re: Is this OK to get httperf back into main?



[Please CC me, I am not on -legal]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:10:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:51 -0400 Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> 
> > Is this OK to get httperf back into main?
> 
> Assuming that
> 
>  * httperf is currently released under the GNU GPL v2
It is.

>  * the only issue that bans httperf from main is its linking against
>    OpenSSL
Aside from OpenSSL, it links to libc6.

>  * every copyright holder has agreed to grant a link exception
I believe so.  Martin, is this statement true?

>  * httperf does not include or link against any other purely GPL'd work
>    (i.e. with no link exception for OpenSSL) 
It does not.

> 
> then yes, it seems that an appropriate link exception would suffice.
> 
> [...]
> > "In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders
> > give permission to link the code of httperf with the OpenSSL
> 
> I think that an
> 
>   s/of httperf/of this work/
> 
> would improve the exception, as it would apply even to a
> differently-named modified version of httperf. 
> 
> > project's "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it
> > that use the same license as the "OpenSSL" library), and
> > distribute the linked executables.
> 
> Following
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs,
> the canonical phrasing suggests an
> 
>   s/the linked executables/linked combinations including the two/
> 
Martin, would you consider the suggested changes?

> > You must obey the GNU
> > General Public License in all respects for all of the code
> > used other than "OpenSSL".  If you modify this file, you may
> > extend this exception to your version of the file, but you
> > are not obligated to do so.  If you do not wish to do
> > so, delete this exception statement from your version."

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr

Attachment: pgpijbBF6HyD2.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: