On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
FWIW, it seems to be the FSF's position that the rewritten "system
libraries" exception in GPLv3 does *not* apply to libraries such as OpenSSL,
only to libraries that constitute "language runtimes". I don't think this
follows directly from the license as written, but it seems once again to at
least be a /tenable/ position for the FSF to hold, so we're no better off
vis à vis OpenSSL under GPLv3 than we were under GPLv2.
Discussion of this can be found in the debian-legal list archives for July.
Ah, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00237.html and
following. It does mean that GPLv3 users of PAM are ok, since PAM is
definitely a system library. So even if OpenSSL were a system library,
we'd need to check the dependencies of libpam0g for GPLv2 only as well.
Shane, Anthony - Did you get a response from Brett Smith regarding
Anthony's most recent post to debian-legal? I can't see anything since
then on debian-legal.
Thanks,
--
# TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \
# UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best |
[ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your |
[ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 /
