Re: Bacula and OpenSSL (original) (raw)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Dear Steve

Steve Langasek wrote:

I agree that the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the OpenSSL license, in the sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no more easily understood) system exception clause, which seems to allow distributing GPLv3 binaries that are /dynamically linked/ against OpenSSL. Is this not the position of FSF/FSF Europe?

I discussed this issue with Brett Smith of FSF, and as a result of this he wrote the following brief summary:

===

We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian. The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including only code that accompanies genuinely fundamental components of the system. I don't see anything to suggest that that's the case for OpenSSL in Debian: the package only has important priority (as opposed to glibc's required), there are only about 350 packages depending on it (as opposed to glibc's 8500), and it isn't installed on a base system. To put it plainly, if OpenSSL actually were a System Library, I would expect it to look more like one.

===

Regards

Shane

Shane Coughlan FTF Coordinator Free Software Foundation Europe Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406 coughlan@fsfeurope.org Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBRp9ziNGa7CzA5hXyAQIeqgQA5Mh8Z4gGTebZlnjrarafevRfHDscrl2n 8eAv6tNOXAX1xPCdEOrtKwIsXGb7NaPKQN6++0HjLRpYbogTsCJY1MBRL7UrE1DT cPwoKByg6rEV+0AcGEprhlSftIEzpHoCavRBc6DIs9Z56tTqsV11sIZIqQOpaAuB QigobVJggsU= =/u7s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply to: