On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:59:43PM +0800, James Andrewartha wrote: > >FWIW, it seems to be the FSF's position that the rewritten "system > >libraries" exception in GPLv3 does *not* apply to libraries such as > >OpenSSL, > >only to libraries that constitute "language runtimes". I don't think this > >follows directly from the license as written, but it seems once again to at > >least be a /tenable/ position for the FSF to hold, so we're no better off > >vis à vis OpenSSL under GPLv3 than we were under GPLv2.
> >Discussion of this can be found in the debian-legal list archives for July. > Ah, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00237.html and > following. It does mean that GPLv3 users of PAM are ok, since PAM is > definitely a system library. Not according to Brett; libpam is not a language runtime. PAM is ok for GPLv3 for the reason that Linux-PAM is explicitly licensed for distribution under the terms of the GPL. > Shane, Anthony - Did you get a response from Brett Smith regarding > Anthony's most recent post to debian-legal? I can't see anything since > then on debian-legal. I spoke with Brett at OSCON last month, where he promised to follow up to the thread. I guess he hasn't found the spare cycles yet. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
