Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 19:12:53) > On 30/03/17 10:44, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > 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. > Do you have any link or resource that can back what you say here? You asked what I _think_ and I shared that with you. I do not speak on behalf of Netatalk, just brought it up as an example of what inspires my thinking. More specifically what makes me think they care about differentiated use cases is their blogging at some point about a NAS company using their code unfairly. but again, I mention this not as a piece of fact but as inspiration on how more generally some may deal differently with licensing. You may judge my input unreliable due to not being proven by fact, or you may judge my thinking "far out". - 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