Re: [LINUX5250] Re: GPL vs. OpenSSL license

[Steve Fox <drfickle@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I got a response back from Kurt Z. and it sounds like he agrees with the
route of amending the license. But he has some other interesting
comments too about the GPL. So at least on Linux and *BSD the current
licensing should be ok. But on Windows (and probably proprietary UNIX)
people would have to install the OpenSSL libraries on their own.

=========================
Kurt wrote:

The GNU GPL is purposely designed not to co-exist with other licenses.
However, there is a general out that most folks miss in the GNU GPL.

        However, as a special exception, the source code distributed
        need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
        either source or binary form) with the major components
        (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which
        the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
        the executable.

OpenSSL is a normally distributed major component of the Linux operating
system on which the executables. That is, you have a problem if you
distribute OpenSSL libraries with the executable.

Of course, this is not true with many non-Linux operating systems such
as AIX.   The solution is for the tn5250 project to note an except to
the GNU GPL in their copyright section (much like Linus does for the
kernel) or to switch to a less restrictive license than the GNU GPL).

==========================

--

Steve Fox
IBM Linux Technology Center
http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc
http://k-lug.org