Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes:
> Russell Coker <russ...@coker.com.au> writes:
>
>> If libschilly met the criteria for being a System Library then it
>> probably have been packaged for use by other programs. If you want to
>> make a case for including libschilly as a System Library then please
>> provide a list of some of the other programs which depend on it.
>
> It's also worth bearing in mind that, in the past, Debian has decided to
> not assume *any* library shipped with Debian is a System Library since the
> concept isn't particularly meaningful for a distribution maker that
> doesn't divide its software into the system and add-ons. It's a somewhat
> ill-defined and murky area of the GPL and I think Debian is best served by
> steering entirely clear of it with the exception of not worrying about the
> fact that the kernel is under the GPL.
The linux kernel luckily has a specific excemption:
linux-source-2.6.26/COPYING:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
So the ball stops at the libc. That the libc calls syscalls does not
make anything a "derived work" of the kernel and the viral nature of
the GPL is halted there.
Debian can work completly without the system library special case.
> If Debian can't consider OpenSSL to be a System Library, and that was the
> decision that we were advised to make in the past, I can't imagine any
> circumstances that would allow libschilly to qualify.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
