Re: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
[snip arguments which appear, on a somewhat cursory reading, to be 100% correct]
> Ok. Now (again) back to the libssl problem.
>
> Is a daemon "dx.c" that when compiled, links with libsnmp, and
> indirectly with libssl, a derivative work of any of them? In principle, no.
>
> Considering dx.c is not a derivative work of libsnmp nor of libssl, and
> that libsnmp is GPLd and libssl is BSD/4-clause-licensed (incompatible
> licenses), can I distribute an executable file, statically compiled,
> that contains dx.c + libsnmp + libssl? Yes, as long as I do one of 3.a,
> 3.b, 3.c WRT libsnmp.
Note that your argument contains correct logic but incorrect facts.
libsnmp is more or less BSD licensed (
http://www.net-snmp.org/about/license.html ). It is Quagga that is
GPL'ed. Substitute, say, a GPL'ed HTTP client library in place of
libsnmp, and it's all good.
> Under the same assumptions, can I distribute an executable file,
> dynamically compiled of dx.c? YES. With NO STRINGS ATTACHED. Under any
> license I see fit, provided I am the copyright holder of dx.c.
>
> I want to explain that I understand why Debian tries to avoid this kind
> of situation, as a matter of courtesy (supposing the copyright owner of
> libsnmp interprets the GPL the same as the FSF FAQ), but it seems to me
> that clarifications and explicit linking exceptions should be sought
> *first*, and that the "offending" software should be removed only if the
> copyright holder *denies* such clarifications.
IANAL, but I believe that to be the correct procedure, from both
courtesy and engineering quality perspectives. A GPL upstream for
networking software that has neither the internal consensus to grant
an OpenSSL exemption (which is, of course, merely estoppel fodder),
nor the ability to identify and rewrite bits in excess of "de minimis"
that were contributed by intransigent or unreachable parties, is
probably not fit to distribute anyway -- certainly not with a 3-year
promise of backported security fixes.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: