Re: GPL+OpenSSL issue -- good suggestion?
On 8/30/05, Andrew Saunders <syntaxis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/30/05, Pascal Giard <evilynux@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd be inclined to accept this and go with the upstream author's will;
> > enable SSL and add information in the copyright file.
>
> He's not the only upstream author of the code, so his statement is not
> sufficient.
Hmm... i wasn't seeing it that way...
I thought the issue was to determine weither or not having code
dynamicly linked against libraries means "including code from those
libraries". If so, clauses 3 and 6 of the OpenSSL license would come
into play and clash with the GPL as mentionned there:
http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
> The package also includes some of Google's artwork (gmail.png).
> Google's usage guidelines[1] forbid any and all modifications to their
> logos ("About Our Logos - One of the conditions for all uses is that
> you can't mess around with our logo. Only we get to do that.") and any
> use of their "Brand Features" requires an explicit permission
> statement from them. It looks like we mightn't have permission to
> distribute this file even from non-free, let alone a suitably
> permissive license to allow it to stay in main. Fortunately, it's just
> an image of the letter "G" so it shouldn't be too hard to whip up a
> replacement.
>
> [1] http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html
Good point! I'll create another G and replace it.
thanks,
-Pascal
--
Homepage (http://organact.mine.nu)
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)
Reply to: