[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14387] Submission of Gene Hightower's

From: Karl Berry
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #14387] Submission of Gene Hightower's SMTP server
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:55:22 -0500 (EST)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46

Follow-up Comment #3, task #14387 (project administration):

Yes, the openssl license is incompatible with the (A)GPL. It is explicitl
stated in the FSF license-list file.

The simplest way out, assuming the usage is intended to be permitted (as it
clearly is here), is to add an additional permission to the files as is done
in, e.g., wget:

Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7

If you modify this program, or any covered work, by linking or
combining it with the OpenSSL project's OpenSSL library (or a
modified version of that library), containing parts covered by the
terms of the OpenSSL or SSLeay licenses, the Free Software Foundation
grants you additional permission to convey the resulting work.
Corresponding Source for a non-source form of such a combination
shall include the source code for the parts of OpenSSL used as well
as that of the covered work.

Gene: regarding the argument of no distribution of the combined work, no,
that's not sufficient (per FSF legal advice). if a program P is intended to be
linked with module M, then P's and M's licenses in combination must be
compatible, even if M is not physically distributed with P.

It may not be intuitive, but that's where we are. Here's an exchange between
rms and haible regarding GPL'd readline and at-the-time-not-GPL'd clisp (which
was not distributing readline, "just" using it) which is essentially the same
issue. Search for "subterfuge" for the crucial message.

As best I understand things ...


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]