On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Apr 16, 2021, at 20:33, Fred Wright wrote:
[...]
For that matter, IMO this whole business of the OpenSSL license
conflicting with the GPL is a bunch of nonsense (at least in the
typical MacPorts scenario). Since when does *dynamically* linking
against an *unbundled* shared library constitute "redistribution" of
said library? And if anyone tries to claim that merely including the
bits necessary to link against the library is "redistribution", the
recent SCOTUS ruling in Oracle v. Google should put that to rest.
Since you're now asking a different question than what I was asking,
let's retitle the thread.
I'm not aware of the Oracle / Google ruling.
They ruled in favor of Google, meaning that copying Oracle's Java header
files to use in conjunction with Google's Java implementation did not
constitute a violation of Oracle's copyright. Essentially they said that
APIs aren't copyrightable.
The reason why the OpenSSL license and GPL conflict, unless an exception
is granted, when the OpenSSL is not part of the operating system, is
explained here:
https://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl
Yes, I'm aware of that alleged explanation. But the key point is that it
relates to the *redistribution* of OpenSSL, and I contend that merely
dynamically linking against a non-bundled OpenSSL library does not
constitute "redistribution" of said library, and hence the alleged
conflict is inapplicable.
Fred Wright
