> > 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. Cheers, mark -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | 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... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ---------------------------(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