[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL versions mismatch.

In message <[🔎] he2uoo$omh$1@ger.gmane.org>, Raúl Sánchez Siles <rasasi78@gmail.com> writes
The other thing is (I don't know OpenSSL) is that the GPL is
incompatible with OpenSSL (which is likely) or is OpenSSL incompatible
with the GPL?

If it's the GPL which won't let you link to OpenSSL, then add an OpenSSL
exemption to v3.

 As far as I know, this is not possible, in other words, incompatible. This
is discussed here:

Well, if that's the case, then GPL v2 plus OpenSSL exemption is also impossible :-)

Bear in mind I said that it's the AUTHORS who dictate terms. If they say "it's okay to link to OpenSSL", then it's okay. End of. (What the GPL says is IRRELEVANT!!!!)

If all the code is licenced "v2+ plus you can link to OpenSSL", then the project can relicence to "v3 plus you can link to OpenSSL".

At the end of the day, the question is "is the GPL the problematic licence?". If it is, then the authors can grant *permissions* over and above the GPL. And it seems to me that they have.

I've just looked at those two links, and all they appear to say to me is that the OpenSSL licence is incompatible with the PURE GPL v*2*. They also say that it may be compatible with v3.

> I assume that the idea was probably that GPLv2 was the best fit framework > for the project. It would clarify some things for me. I also think that it > may have stopped being the best framework for the project, because please > correct me if I'm wrong, it would prevent accepting GPLv3 contributions. > This would clash with the need of GPLv2 for the openssl issue. There could
> be other points which I fail to see and which I appreciate hearing.

> Besides I'm not sure I understand your latter paragraph, specially the
> part: "then your way forward will be logically apparent". Although I
> understand that only code authors can change license and the "best fit
> framework" theory.

From what you've said, I think the way forward is apparent. As you surmise, accepting GPL v3 contributions isn't possible with the current project status saying the project licence is v2. Actually, I think you COULD accept v3 contributions, but to do so you'd need to change the project licence to v3.

You'll need to confirm this for yourself, but what you've said to me makes me think the following:

1) All the code is v2+, so changing the project licence to v3 is NOT a problem. 2) The OpenSSL problem is that the GPL v2 does not permit linking to OpenSSL. But all the authors have granted the OpenSSL-exception, so there is no problem linking with OpenSSL (and OpenSSL may be compatible with v3, but seeing as the authors have granted an exception that's irrelevant).

So if you WANT to change the project licence to "GPL v3 plus the OpenSSL exception" there is no problem whatsoever. You can just go ahead and do it RIGHT NOW! if you wish.

To re-iterate, your authors have said you can link to OpenSSL, so what the GPL (whatever version) says is irrelevant as far as linking to OpenSSL is concerned.

Where I think you've got confused with the GPL is adding/subtracting permissions. The GPL is an "all or nothing" proposition - you can't grant SOME of the GPL rights and not others and call it GPL'd. But if you grant ALL the GPL rights, there is nothing to stop you granting MORE rights on top of the GPL rights (such as the "link to OpenSSL" right :-)

Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk

Reply to: