On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 08:15:36AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > I have no reason to believe that the GPL's claim depends on the status of > > derivative works; it is a condition of distributing binaries under the GPL > > that the source to the work "and any components it contains" must be made > > available under the terms of the GPL. The fact that Alexandria does not > > make *direct* use of OpenSSL is no defense, IMHO. > That's in the context of a "work based on the Program" (check out the > first sentence of GPL section 2), The phrase "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains" appears in the text of GPL section *3*, which is not specific to "works based on the Program." Such lack of attention to license detail from one who has so much to say on the subject is truly appalling. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature