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