-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Steve
Steve Langasek wrote: > I agree that the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the OpenSSL license, in the > sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a > GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no more easily > understood) system exception clause, which seems to allow distributing GPLv3 > binaries that are /dynamically linked/ against OpenSSL. Is this not the > position of FSF/FSF Europe? I discussed this issue with Brett Smith of FSF, and as a result of this he wrote the following brief summary: === We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian. The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including only code that accompanies genuinely fundamental components of the system. I don't see anything to suggest that that's the case for OpenSSL in Debian: the package only has important priority (as opposed to glibc's required), there are only about 350 packages depending on it (as opposed to glibc's 8500), and it isn't installed on a base system. To put it plainly, if OpenSSL actually were a System Library, I would expect it to look more like one. - -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation === Regards Shane - -- Shane Coughlan FTF Coordinator Free Software Foundation Europe Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRp9ziNGa7CzA5hXyAQIeqgQA5Mh8Z4gGTebZlnjrarafevRfHDscrl2n 8eAv6tNOXAX1xPCdEOrtKwIsXGb7NaPKQN6++0HjLRpYbogTsCJY1MBRL7UrE1DT cPwoKByg6rEV+0AcGEprhlSftIEzpHoCavRBc6DIs9Z56tTqsV11sIZIqQOpaAuB QigobVJggsU= =/u7s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]