Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:28:46 -0400 Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > > > Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL > > program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program > >

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

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

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 30/03/17 08:05, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:10:01PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >> Apache 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3 [1] (therefore also with GPLv2+). > It's more complicated than "therefore also". > Imagine a GPL2+ program library linked with a GPL2

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 30/03/17 21:29, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >> * License Must Not Contaminate _Other_ Software > > A work which is a derivative work of another piece of software isn't > merely distributed alongside. > >> Shipping a collection of software on a

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 30/03/17 21:09, Russ Allbery wrote: > Lars Wirzenius writes: > >> Instead, I'll repeat that licenses shouldn't be violated. One way of >> achieving that is to ask copyright holders for additional permissions >> that are needed to avoid a violation. > > The problem with this

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > * License Must Not Contaminate _Other_ Software A work which is a derivative work of another piece of software isn't merely distributed alongside. > Shipping a collection of software on a DVD doesn't make any of this > pieces of software a

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 30/03/17 14:31, Ian Jackson wrote: > Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes ("Re: System libraries and the GPLv2"): >> However, I still don't understand why we don't just declare OpenSSL a >> system library; or at least define a clear policy for when a package is >> considered part of the base

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Holger Levsen wrote: > It's also a major fuckup for some GPLv2-only users (as you just > described), which as a result made *me* like+trust the FSF and the GPL > less. The FSF has always suggested that everyone license their works with the current revision of the GPL at the

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 19:12:53) > On 30/03/17 10:44, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24) > >> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote: > >>> Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04 > >>>

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 30/03/17 10:44, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24) >> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote: >>> Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04 >>> +0200: I understand that Debian wants to take a position of zero

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:27:46AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > What really annoys me about this whole situation is this: I think no > one presently argues that the GPLv2 prevents people from distributing > pre-built binaries for proprietary operating systems. I can take > Hotspot (a component

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes ("Re: System libraries and the GPLv2"): > However, I still don't understand why we don't just declare OpenSSL a > system library; or at least define a clear policy for when a package is > considered part of the base system (so the GPL system exception applies > to

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24) > On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04 > > +0200: > >> I understand that Debian wants to take a position of zero (or > >> minimal) risk, and I also understand