Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: >>> #5 Declare GMP to be a system library. >>> >> (snip) >> >>> #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian >>> has another viewpoint on OpenSSL I somehow doubt we would use it for >>> GMP.

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 >&

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

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 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. > >> Shippi

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 l

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 29/03/17 15:58, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote: >>> Florian Weimer wrote: > #5 Declare GMP to be a system library. > (snip) > #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian > has another

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 29/03/17 19:37, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:49:48 +0200 Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > > [...] >> I think that any package that is essential for the base OS >> (aka Priority: required) should qualify for the system exception. > > We

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 29/03/17 22:28, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:58:07PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >> So... does this means that we are actually *now* shipping OpenSSL with >> GPL software on the same DVD? > This is permitted, or are you jok

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 29/03/17 22:25, Brian May wrote: > Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clo...@igalia.com> writes: > >> But in the worst case, it will be compatible with GPLv2+ and GPLv3. > > I am not sure I see this as the worst case situation. Or maybe you meant > to write "in

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

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: >> On 30/03/17 00:24, Philipp Kern wrote: >>> On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >>>> So, the best case situation (IMH

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 30/03/17 00:26, Josh Triplett wrote: > Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote: >>> Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: >>>>> #5 Declare GMP to be a system library. >>>>> >>>> (snip

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 30/03/17 00:24, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >> So, the best case situation (IMHO) would be that a lawyer tell us that >> Apache 2.0 is also compatible with GPLv2-only, and that we stop playing >> the game of being am