[LINUX5250] Re: License is a non-issue?

[Carey Evans <carey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott Klement <klemscot@klements.com> writes:

[...]

> On Linux, FreeBSD, other unix & unix-like OSes:
>      OpenSSL comes with the operating system, and therefore is not
>      restricted by the GPL (as Steve Fox mentioned today).  For the
>      other OSes, where OpenSSL may not be included, a binary version
>      would still be problematic, but they could always build from source.

On Debian, OpenSSL is not part of the OS; it can be downloaded from
the non-US FTP mirrors or installed from another CD if users need it.

OpenSSL is also not part of the Linux Standard Base, so it's arguable
whether it's "part of the operating system" anyway.

In any case, whatever you think of this reasoning, Debian will not
distribute a GPL program that's linked with OpenSSL without some kind
of exception or clarification from the authors.

[...]

>      b) Add the "openssl exception" to each file that uses the
>           "non-library" license, in the event we ever wish to make
>           binary ports to systems that don't have OpenSSL included.
>
> That's my recommendation at this point.

Agreed, with reservations.

I'd like to see the weakened GPL replaced with something standard like
the LGPL, which is probably stronger and more clearly explains what it
means.  Does anyone know where the exception comes from?

And why not distribute the whole thing under LGPL, which doesn't need
any exception clause anyway to link with OpenSSL?

--
         Carey Evans  http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/

                             Cavem canus.