On Monday, 25 Mar 2002, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:03:21AM -0600, David Frascone wrote: > > I don't think so. If we don't *require* openssl, or ever even point to how > > to download it, then we're not recommending it's usage either. But, if it > > happens to be distributed with the OS, we will detect and use it. I *do* > > think that will keep the licenses free from question. > > Just consider the intent of the license (GPL). The intention is that you can > have the source code to the entire program, including the C library. > (On proprietary systems that isn't feasible, so there's a specific > exemption for libraries supplied with the system.) And then you must > be able to modify the program for your own use and distribute your > changes, also licensed with the GPL, as you see fit. > > If you consider run-time linking of libraries as acceptable, then > anyone is free to write plug-ins or new code for Ethereal for which > they won't distribute the source - which violates the intent of the > license.
Ok. Good example. But, what about libc under Solaris. It's just runtime linking. I think using an external library for our (the authors') benefit is not in violation of the intent of the license. (writing a closed source plugin definately would be) > As free software authors we should not be trying to evade a free > software license - especially the license of the product we are > working on! I don't think we're evading a license. If OpenSSL was GPL, then there would be no discussion going on. We're trying to use another free library, with a *less* restrictive license than our own. We seem to have no problem linking with libraries with *more* restrictive licenses (i.e. libc under HP/UX, Solaris, and, God forbid, MS Windows), but are having many issues linking to a less restrictive one. And, we're even (If we take my runtime only linking approach) completly avoiding any source code contamination by linking only at run time. I say let's do it. I seriously doubt anyone will complain. And, if *anyone* does (even one author), then we just throw out the changes. Comments? -Dave -- David Frascone A bad random number generator: 1, 1, 1, 4.33e+67, 1, 1, 1
