Aaron Sethman wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, bishop wrote:
So, what do we do? We write an exeption in a GPL-licensed project's
software license? That only seems shady on the surface, like one's
trying to exempt oneself from someone else's licensing - -I'd like to do
that with MS. In fact, the only problem is that, soon, maintainers of
GPL-licensed projects will need to maintain an entire list of
exemptions, and it may eventually be larger than the GPL boilerplate -
no mean feat, but as time_t->oo ...
Well one simple solution is not to use liblzo. We lose some functionality
that could be replaced with the slightly slower but better compressing
zlib.
I think that this is another example of how the GPL1 license is really
not intended for a world that is not either entirely GPL or entirely
non-GPL. It's perhaps meant to eventually edge-out the non-GPL
licenses, something we'd normally consider a bit more difficult if it
weren't the much-loved GNU doing it. The motives are similar to any
other empire-builder (Oh yes, and please let us remora the name of your
operating system).
Please lets not have this into a license penis measuring war. This
doesn't solve anything for the problem at hand.
Sorry, yes: The leaky boat isn't related. Keep bailing.
I would suggest, for our sanity and not for the sake of any freedom we
require to link with whatever projects we choose, that we do NOT
consider adding any more GPL-covered projects to this one. In case we
run into any more snags, the remaining GPL bits can be pulled more easily.
Just because its not simple, doesn't mean some software authors don't want
to GPL their software. Personally I think you can make a very strong
argument that on a lot of systems openssl is considered a system library.
The is a rather old discussion that has been brought up various times with
regards to different pieces of software.
But, again, the exceptions don't support a rule. The LSB itself, last
time I looked, uses that 'system component' discriminator to determine
the Correct install location. In short, if the project is blessed and
included by a distro, its location (and, apparently, licensing) follows
a different set of rules. No part of that really made sense, if we
truly aim to avoid those measures that have been set up only to reduce
churn potential.
Also, such a distinction fails inductive reasoning: there's no 'base'
case, to my quick inspection and admittedly aging math experience.
Is this an issue that should be Asked of Slashdot?
And this will help us how? I think maybe somebody should ask a good
lawyer, not /.
"Did you consider the linking nuances of your license" may not be one
that applies to all lawyers, especially those that don't actually build
software, and I know that the team at work just has no time for things
not related to the products with which we work. What company employs
people at a lawyer's rate, but on a linux budget, just so they can sit
around and wait for these questions?
But, hey, the discussion's already out of scope of the list, so it's
nothing that can concern the average orwellian horse. We can ust keep
bailing, or take it offline.
Regards,
Aaron
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-devel mailing list
Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
--
"Every well-bred petty crook knows -- the small concealable
weapons always go to the far left of the place setting."
-- Inara (Morena Baccarin), "Firefly"
(unaired - into production AFTER fox crushed it)
