Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I agree that the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the OpenSSL license, in the
> sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
> GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no more easily
> understood) system exception clause, which seems to allow distributing GPLv3
> binaries that are /dynamically linked/ against OpenSSL. Is this not the
> position of FSF/FSF Europe?
I discussed this issue with Brett Smith of FSF, and as a result of this
he wrote the following brief summary:
We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
only code that accompanies genuinely fundamental components of the
system. I don't see anything to suggest that that's the case for
OpenSSL in Debian: the package only has important priority (as opposed
to glibc's required), there are only about 350 packages depending on it
(as opposed to glibc's 8500), and it isn't installed on a base system.
To put it plainly, if OpenSSL actually were a System Library, I would
expect it to look more like one.
- -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
Free Software Foundation Europe
Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406
Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----