> Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > And it's not always even that simple: for example, the freeradius
> > project's postgresql plugin links against the postgresql client library
> > (naturally). Postgresql may or may not link against OpenSSL. If it does,
> > then the freeradius-postgresql plugin is breaking the GPL's
> > rules, but how
> > the postgresql client library was compiled isn't neccessarily under
> > freeradius's control.
> Maybe the problem is the GPL rules.
In this case, at least, it's just the interpretation of them. For
example,
a piece of software cannot break GPL rules. Even generously assuming the
phrase "the freeradius-postgresql plugin is breaking the GPL's rules" means
that the person who distributed the plugin is violating the rules, it still
makes no sense. The freeradius-postgresql plugin is not a derivative work of
the OpenSSL library just because postgresql is capable of linking to
OpenSSL.
Part of the problem is that a number of GPL advocates don't understand
the
license they advocate for. Particularly, they don't understand that:
1) The GPL only 'infects' derivative works.
2) What is or is not a derivative work is defined by copyright law, not
the
GPL itself.
3) The GPL only applies to someone who exercises a right they could not
get
any way other than by the GPL giving it to them.
4) There are other ways you can get rights to a work, particularly fair
use, first sale, scenes a faire, and by taking only non-protectably
functional content.
5) There is no right under copyright law to restrict the distribution of
lawfully created derivative works to those with the right to use the
original work.
DS
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
