Re: GPL versions mismatch.
"Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In message <[🔎] he2uoo$omh$1@ger.gmane.org>, Raúl Sánchez Siles
> <rasasi78@gmail.com> writes
> >> 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.
>
> 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!!!!)
Perhaps a more precise way of saying this is: The GPL grants to the
recipient a set of permissions otherwise reserved to the copyright
holder. The copyright holder can always grant *more* permissions; the
effective license terms then become a superset of the GPL's terms.
What the copyright holder doesn't get to do is restrict actions not
reserved to them by copyright. That's not what is being discussed here;
but it's best not to generalise too much.
--
\ “Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything |
`\ that's even remotely true!” —Homer, _The Simpsons_ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: