Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <[email protected]>, Raúl Sánchez Siles > <[email protected]> writes >>> The other thing is (I don't know OpenSSL) is that the GPL is >>> incompatible with OpenSSL (which is likely) or is OpenSSL incompatible >>> with the GPL? >>> >>> If it's the GPL which won't let you link to OpenSSL, then add an OpenSSL >>> exemption to v3. >> >> As far as I know, this is not possible, in other words, incompatible. >> This >>is discussed here: > > Well, if that's the case, then GPL v2 plus OpenSSL exemption is also > impossible :-) > > Bear in mind I said that it's the AUTHORS who dictate terms. If they say > "it's okay to link to OpenSSL", then it's okay. End of. (What the GPL > says is IRRELEVANT!!!!) > > If all the code is licenced "v2+ plus you can link to OpenSSL", then the > project can relicence to "v3 plus you can link to OpenSSL". >
You opened my eyes. I was totally misleaded about the incompatibility between GPLv3 and OpenSSL. Well, it's true that they are incompatible, same as with GPLv2, as you stated. For any strange reason I thought GPLv3 was such, that the exception to link against OpenSSL was not possible to apply, or at least it was not possible without messing around GPLv3 in such a way that it would become naked. I now see that exception can be added painlessly. According to this, I started searching with a better criteria and I got to this two options: [1] GPLv2+ and [2] GPLv3. As you can see both add the OpenSSL exception [1] https://trac.vidalia-project.net/browser/vidalia/trunk/LICENSE [2] http://qt.gitorious.org/qt-labs/mobile-demos/blobs/master/LICENSE.GPL3 > > At the end of the day, the question is "is the GPL the problematic > licence?". If it is, then the authors can grant *permissions* over and > above the GPL. And it seems to me that they have. This is clear now. :) Only that at first I was frightened that authors needed to tailor its own license, which I clearly see it's not needed (besides discouraged) > > I've just looked at those two links, and all they appear to say to me is > that the OpenSSL licence is incompatible with the PURE GPL v*2*. They > also say that it may be compatible with v3. ACK. > > > I assume that the idea was probably that GPLv2 was the best fit > framework > > for the project. It would clarify some things for me. I also think > that it > > may have stopped being the best framework for the project, because > please > > correct me if I'm wrong, it would prevent accepting GPLv3 > contributions. > > This would clash with the need of GPLv2 for the openssl issue. There > could > > be other points which I fail to see and which I appreciate hearing. > > > Besides I'm not sure I understand your latter paragraph, specially > the > > part: "then your way forward will be logically apparent". Although I > > understand that only code authors can change license and the "best fit > > framework" theory. > > From what you've said, I think the way forward is apparent. As you > surmise, accepting GPL v3 contributions isn't possible with the current > project status saying the project licence is v2. Actually, I think you > COULD accept v3 contributions, but to do so you'd need to change the > project licence to v3. ...Or to v2+, if I understood correctly. > > You'll need to confirm this for yourself, but what you've said to me > makes me think the following: > > 1) All the code is v2+, so changing the project licence to v3 is NOT a > problem. Only that authors are reluctant to such a /big/ change right now, it'd need some discussion and time. But there's not really much motivation in the move so far. > 2) The OpenSSL problem is that the GPL v2 does not permit linking to > OpenSSL. But all the authors have granted the OpenSSL-exception, so > there is no problem linking with OpenSSL (and OpenSSL may be compatible > with v3, but seeing as the authors have granted an exception that's > irrelevant). > > So if you WANT to change the project licence to "GPL v3 plus the OpenSSL > exception" there is no problem whatsoever. You can just go ahead and do > it RIGHT NOW! if you wish. I'll push towards it, yes. > > To re-iterate, your authors have said you can link to OpenSSL, so what > the GPL (whatever version) says is irrelevant as far as linking to > OpenSSL is concerned. > > Where I think you've got confused with the GPL is adding/subtracting > permissions. The GPL is an "all or nothing" proposition - you can't > grant SOME of the GPL rights and not others and call it GPL'd. But if > you grant ALL the GPL rights, there is nothing to stop you granting MORE > rights on top of the GPL rights (such as the "link to OpenSSL" right :-) > You look right, it's only I need to arrange correctly my thoughts about permission/rights and related concepts. > Cheers, > Wol _Big_ thanks. -- Raúl Sánchez Siles ----->Proud Debian user<----- Linux registered user #416098 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
