[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 Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 08:51:12PM -0700, Martin Arlitt wrote:
> Roberto
> 
> all of the copyright holders have agreed to the exception.
> 
> as for the rewording of the exception, I will have to check with the
> people who provided me with the exception that I sent you.  I won't be
> able to get an answer to you until after July 4th.
> 
> Martin
> 
That's fine.  I am more interested in doing this correctly (so the
problem does not resurface), rather than quickly.  As it stands, httperf
is no longer in the stable Debian distribution, so there is no need to
rush.

-Roberto

> 
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> 
> > [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
> >

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

Attachment: pgpSHCmLxSx5a.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: