Re: GPL versions mismatch.
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>, Raúl Sánchez Siles
> <email@example.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.
>>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: 
GPLv2+ and  GPLv3. As you can see both add the OpenSSL exception
> 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
> 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
> > 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
> > correct me if I'm wrong, it would prevent accepting GPLv3
> > This would clash with the need of GPLv2 for the openssl issue. There
> > be other points which I fail to see and which I appreciate hearing.
> > Besides I'm not sure I understand your latter paragraph, specially
> > 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
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
> 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.
Raúl Sánchez Siles
----->Proud Debian user<-----
Linux registered user #416098