[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:
pgpbFpVJduLkv.pgp
Description: PGP signature