Henrik Ahlgren <pa...@seestieto.com> writes: > Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> writes: > >> I think the idea behind the "proprietary system library" GPL exception >> is to make it possible to distribute GPL binaries linked to non-free >> system libraries on systems where that is pretty much unavoidable, e.g. >> system libraries on AIX, IRIX etc. The exception is that you are not >> required to distribute source code for the non-free system libraries: > > I feel it is important to remember that the GPL v2 was released in June > 1991. This was the era of proprietary UNIX, and the concept of a > (GNU/)Linux distribution, or the Linux kernel as a serious project, had > yet to emerge. Ian Murdoch founded Debian in 1993.
Sure. But the concept of non-free system libraries is still common and the exception is applicable to these situations. Compare how Homebrew can distribute GPLv2 binaries linked to system libraries on macOS without having to distribute source code for those system libraries. > BTW, FSF considers Apache 2.0 as a good license and that "it's > unfortunate that the Apache License 2.0 isn't compatible with some free > software licenses like GPLv2". Compatibility with it was one important > goal for GPLv3. So, this incompatibility was not never designed, it was > just a mistake of an early free software license from a different era. That would be a good argument for git to use GPLv3 from 2007 instead of older GPLv2. I don't think that will happen, so we are stuck with GPLv2 for git, and the consequences of that decision. > I believe that the term "system library" lacks significant meaning in an > operating system like Debian. I think that I agree with this. System libraries were intended for things outside of the collection of work that you are distributing, such as non-free system libraries on proprietary Unix. The comparable element for Debian would be the UEFI boot loader or BIOS software. But if this is the case, it seems you cannot invoke the GPL exception? It is only valid for linking to something that qualify as a system library. If OpenSSL in Debian isn't a system library, there is no exception that allows linking. > One could argue that all libraries in Debian qualify as "system > libraries". Yes, I think that could also be reasonable. However I think this interpretation fails the "unless that component itself accompanies the executable" part of the GPLv2 system library exception: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. All this said, I think primarily the assumption that other distributions made is that Linus won't sue to defend his GPLv2 copyright in Linux and isn't likely to do so for Git either. That assumption works less well for other copyright holders that may be more interested in defending their rights. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
