> > Now Exim has granted an exception that gets Debian off the hook, but
> > they didn't have to do that.
> Right.  If they didn't then it's conceivable that Exim could sue Debian
> for violating the GPL license.  Not exactly likely to happen but being
> cautious it's best to get their explicit approval rather than playing
> the "well, we'll just wait and see if they sue us" game.

This is pure FUD, and unacceptable if spoken from a position of
authority. State what you think this theoretical case would be. At
least if you picked GPL including closed source code, you might be
able to claim that the resulting derived work was not distributed
complete with source code. OpenSSL, however, is open source. The only
possible complaint could be "you failed to advertise OpenSSL in the
resulting distributed image", which would be a correct observation,
easily corrected by the inclusion of a note in the documentation for
the distributed software unit that includes both pieces of software.
This correction is an existing requirement for any software
distribution that includes OpenSSL, It is an acceptable, and easily
honoured requirement.

Anybody who has a problem admitting that their software distribution
includes OpenSSL software in their documentation, has no sympathy from
me. Attribution is an acceptable right to enforce under copyright law,
and an honourable practice with or without a licensing requirement
explicitly stating this as a requirement.

Caution to the point of fantasy is a waste of resources. Caution to
further a political agenda (not you - but the people whose opinions you
are repeating) is exploitation.

I am unable to find a single clause in the GPL (which I have analyzed
many years ago, but also re-read several times in the last two days)
that would make it impossible to satisfy all of the GPL, PostgreSQL
(BSD) license, and the OpenSSL license at the same time. Every single
clause of all three licenses can be easily satisfied without conflict.
Those of you who are claiming otherwise, have failed to point to a
single phrase in the GPL that could not be satisfied when distributing
all three pieces of software as a single unit. Without a single point
of true conflict between all three licenses, I do not accept that
there is any case to require an OpenSSL exemption clause for
Debian. Those who are doing so are doing a disservice to everyone by
contributing to the general confusion on this subject. The clause is
not required. The clause has no effect.

To distribute a software unit that includes software from all of a
GPL product, PostgreSQL, and OpenSSL, one needs only do the following:

    1) Documentation for the software unit should include documentation
       to describe that the software includes OpenSSL.

    2) The distribution of the software unit should include a text copy
       of all three licenses.

    3) Source code for the entire unit should be provided. I don't believe
       the FSF can legally enforce this requirement, however, with
       GPL + PostgreSQL + OpenSSL, there is *NO* conflict. The source code
       for all three can be made available upon request, or contained within
       the distribution.

    4) Various other minor points, such as the requirement that changes
       are dated and such. None of which conflict between the three licenses.

To state again. There is *NO* conflict between the licenses. The terms
of each can be fulfilled completely, and separately, without
invalidating each other. Those who claim otherwise need to point to a
specific requirement from one of the licenses that would prevent it
from being used. They cannot, because such a point does not
exist. Ascii pictures. Hearsay. Confusion regarding existing practice
or existing thoughts on the matter. No single point of conflict has
been raised.  The GPL does not state that "GPL software may not derive
from software that has an advertising clause." Considering that this
is the primary point raised by people, it is ironic that the GPL has
no such restriction.

Be honest about it. *You* don't like the advertising clause. The GPL
has nothing to say on the issue, and therefore is *NOT* in conflict
with it.

This thread has re-enforced my conclusion that the GPL is a poor choice
of license for any product I ever work on in the future. A decade ago,
as a teenager, I thought it was cool to put GPL on the software that I
made available to the world. I felt like I was part of something bigger.
Now I just feel disgusted. The GPL is not about freedom. It is about
enforcing a world view on all who use your software.

Thank you PostgreSQL contributors for choosing the BSD style. I think
it was an excellent choice.

This is my last contribution to this thread. I've said my piece.  Note
that I don't intend to convert all of you. As this issue is primarily
political, people will have a tendency to stay with their own camp,
regardless of what is said. We all have a tendencies to read each others
words, looking only for fault in what is said, purposefully choosing not
to assimilate the other persons contribution. It's called the "I am right
you are wrong" syndrome, and I'm not exempt from it.

I hope I provided value to this discussion. If not, I apologize.


.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to