Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 23:42 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit : > > This flaw of the GPLv3 is at least good for something. If your GPL > > software can now be included in the HP-UX or AIX distribution, it can > > also be included in Debian. > > Well, I don't consider the above a flaw. The flaw (restriction of my freedom) > is in GPL if it does not permit linking with OpenSSL (IMO). This is a flaw in the copyleft, because it allows proprietary software distributors to benefit from the software more than they deserve. As for not being compatible with the OpenSSL license, this is intentional and the fact the GPLv3 wasn't changed to allow it confirms this intention. The advertising clause is not problematic for Bacula, but it may be so for much other software. > I agree with your interpretation, but I'm pretty sure that is not > the "official" interpretation that Debian takes or am I mistaken? The GPLv3 is quite new and I don't think all consequences have been explored. Anyway, it would be more relevant to know whether the copyright holders (here, the FSF) agree that this clause applies to OpenSSL in Debian (which is priority important and required by key components of the windowing system). > In fact, I consider for linking with Bacula as a separately installed piece of > the system libraries that OpenSSL is part of the "operating" system in the > same way that tcp wrappers or glibc is or any other library is, which would > mean that there should be no problem with GPL v2. However, I know as a fact > that as far as GPL v2 goes, Debian definitely does not agree with my > interpretation. This is true for Bacula packages you would distribute yourself, but this is *not* the case for packages included in Debian. The GPLv2 reads: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, *unless that component itself accompanies the executable*. This clause couldn't be more explicit. Debian ships all its software at the same place, which means the exception doesn't apply. > Bacula code is GPL v2, but all third party GPL'ed code (mostly FSF) is GPL v2 > or later. Then, unless I have seriously misunderstood the reworded system libraries exception, I think relicensing Bacula under the GPLv3 (or dual-licensing under v2 and v3) should be fine for Debian. > I am told that FSF never grants exceptions so this is a hopeless path that I > have already explored. Indeed. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=