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

--
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:50:48PM -0600, Scott Klement wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I went through the source files looking at the licenses.  Almost every
> file in the distribution contains the "weaker" version of the GPL, that
> states:
>
>        "The exception is that if you link the TN5250 library with
>         other files to produce an executable, this does not by itself
>         cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU
>         General Public License.  Your use of that executable is in no
>         way restricted on account of lining the TN5250 library code into
>         it."
>
> The exception to that rule are these files:
>
>       conf.c, conf.h       (copyright by Jason M. Felice)

These should have the exception clause.  I don't have time at the moment, but
I've signed this message, so it's me in case anyone is paranoid.  Someone
can add the exception.

>       getopt.c, getopt.h   (Not used at all, we should remove these)

You're right, these should be removed.  They were stolen from GNU libc a while
back when we used getopt() for command-line parsing and still wanted to compile
under Windows.

>       scs2pdf.c, tn5250.c  (copyright by Michael Madore)

I'm surprised lp5250d.c and scs2ascii.c are not on the list.  Basically the
idea was to put the library source under LGPL but the actual programs under
GPL.

Come to think of it, nothing that links against openssl is under the GPL
instead of the LGPL, so we should not have to worry about anything.  In any
case, I'm of the opinion that we aren't lawyers, and if someone wants to
bitch (as in an OpenSSL copyright holder), we'll figure out a way to resolve
their *specific* complaints.  It's obvious that it isn't the intent to
prevent us from doing what we are doing, we're just getting into one of those
areas where you can't license based on intent so you have to dance around
details.

>
> Consequently, I'm not sure that there would be a conflict with
> distributing binaries.  Here's why:
>
> 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 Windows:
>      None of the six files (above) are used by the Windows port.
>      Therefore, they are not an issue.
>
> So, it does not appear that we have a conflict at all.  However, we may
> want to update the licenses in this manner:
>
>      a) Use the same license on scs2ascii, lp5250d, the win32 stuff
>           that we're using for tn5250.c.   These shouldn't be referring
>           to themselves as part of the "TN5250 library".
>
>      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.
>
>
--
[ Content of type application/pgp-signature deleted ]