On 10-08-2004 11:24, "Glenn Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For the record, this is my opinion: >> If indeed, if I am ONLY distributing netatalk binary, linked to OpenSSL, but >> no including OpenSSL. Then I have a program able to talk to OpenSSL is >> present. However, it can just as well work without it (as long as I don't >> use the features it requires OpenSSL for). So because of that, I'd say that >> this makes netatalk a standalone work. > > I don't buy that you can circumvent the GPL simply by taking GPL code, pushing > it into a loadable module, making your proprietary code use it, and making > them two separate downloads: "I can't distribute these together; in order to > get around the GPL, you'll have to download and install these separately." You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use it, and make them into two seperate downloads. Because THAT is what I wish, what you describe (which, as I understand now, is indeed not allowed by the GPL). As a side-note. What I want is already common practice. In particular this is what happens in kernel development. The GNU/Linux kernel is GPL-licenced, while a lot of hardware drivers (the loadable modules) have non-GPL compatible licences. Maybe I need to ask this question on one of the GNU lists. >> [Argument that GPL violates rule #9 of the DFSG snipped] > > The GPL is placing restrictions on software that it's combined with; the > restriction is unrelated to what it is "distributed along with". OK. I was probably wrong there. "combined with" and "distributed along with" are two different things. Maybe my argument holds if I refine it, but honestly, I really hope not to prove that, so I let that rest. Thanks for the counter-argument. > ['Silly' requirements in the OpenSSL licenced pointed out] > > I'm not arguing that the license isn't free; just that the GPL isn't the > only license placing annoying restrictions here. I agree. Thanks. I guess it is just that in my limited vision, GPL was 'top of the bill' and was great because it 'allowed free software'. I now realise that things are not as black and white. I may come over it. :-) But I will probably use LGPL (or the MIT licence you mentioned) for my projects in the future. Regards, Freek Dijkstra (who never thought that a good argument about laws and licence could be this exciting)