On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > On 30/03/17 21:29, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Precisely. It only has bearing on whether the system library > > exception to derivative works applies. > > It should apply.
Why should it apply? GPLv2 is written to make the system library exception not apply to distributors of the system library. > Fedora and RHEL ship also DVD images, and they do use this system > exception clause of the GPL for linking with OpenSSL. How do you know this? They could have made a judgement that copyright holders who have written code which links against OpenSSL have given an implicit license grant, or that the likelihood of litigation is outweighed by the issue with distributing such software. Or they may have just not bothered doing either, and hoped for the best. > If you are still not sure, lets consult this with a lawyer instead of > trying to argue about the wording of a license. I don't think that's necessary, but by all means, write up a specific set of questions that you propose to have the project ask its legal representation. Note as well, that the legal advice will necessarily be jurisdiction and project specific. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com This can't be happening to me. I've got tenure. -- James Hynes _Publish and Perish_
