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

Re: GPL versions mismatch.

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

> 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".

  You opened my eyes. I was totally misleaded about the incompatibility 
between GPLv3 and OpenSSL. Well, it's true that they are incompatible, same 
as with GPLv2, as you stated. For any strange reason I thought GPLv3 was 
such, that the exception to link against OpenSSL was not possible to apply, 
or at least it was not possible without messing around GPLv3 in such a way 
that it would become naked.

  I now see that exception can be added painlessly. According to this, I 
started searching with a better criteria and I got to this two options: [1] 
GPLv2+ and [2] GPLv3. As you can see both add the OpenSSL exception 

[1] https://trac.vidalia-project.net/browser/vidalia/trunk/LICENSE
[2] http://qt.gitorious.org/qt-labs/mobile-demos/blobs/master/LICENSE.GPL3

> 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.

  This is clear now. :) Only that at first I was frightened that authors 
needed to tailor its own license, which I clearly see it's not needed 
(besides discouraged)

> 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.

  ...Or to v2+, if I understood correctly.

> 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.

  Only that authors are reluctant to such a /big/ change right now, it'd 
need some discussion and time. But there's not really much motivation in the 
move so far.

> 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.

  I'll push towards it, yes.

> 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 :-)
  You look right, it's only I need to arrange correctly my thoughts about 
permission/rights and related concepts.

> Cheers,
> Wol

  _Big_ thanks.

     Raúl Sánchez Siles
----->Proud Debian user<-----
Linux registered user #416098

Reply to: