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

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24)
> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04 +0200:
> >> I understand that Debian wants to take a position of zero (or 
> >> minimal) risk, and I also understand the desire to respect the 
> >> interpretation of the FSF about the GPL (they don't think this two 
> >> licenses are compatibles).
> >>
> > 
> > I believe that this is a fundamental difference between RedHat and 
> > Debian.
> > 
> > RedHat is going to do everything within the law and inside their 
> > values for a profit. Their values don't include a strict adherence 
> > to the wishes of copyright holders, but strict adherence to the law.
> > 
> > But our values do include respect for copyright holder rights. So 
> > while we can probably get away with this legally, it's been decided 
> > (a few times?) that without the GPL licensor's consent, we can't in 
> > good faith produce a combination of OpenSSL and a GPL program.
> > 
> Just a simple question:
> Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the 
> GPL program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their 
> program to be used along with OpenSSL, when they where the ones 
> implementing support for using it on the first place?

Yes, I believe so.

As a concrete example, the Netatalk project has for many years released 
code with plugins linking to OpenSSL, but has not added an exception.  
Authors of Netatalk try to make a living out of commercial support for 
their product, and I genuinely think it is in their interest to make it 
possible to use strong crypto - for personal use - but not allow 
redistribution of binaries with strong crypto.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: