Ben Finney wrote:
> "Anthony W. Youngman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> In message <[email protected]>, Raúl Sánchez Siles
>> <[email protected]> writes
>> >> 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.
>>
>> 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!!!!)
>
> Perhaps a more precise way of saying this is: The GPL grants to the
> recipient a set of permissions otherwise reserved to the copyright
> holder. The copyright holder can always grant *more* permissions; the
> effective license terms then become a superset of the GPL's terms.
>
> What the copyright holder doesn't get to do is restrict actions not
> reserved to them by copyright. That's not what is being discussed here;
> but it's best not to generalise too much.
>
Ok, this also has helped me to understand. 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]
