On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:02:03 -0000 PatRiehecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To double check my assumptions before going forward: > 1) Debian holds that GPL software must make some exception for it to be > correctly linked with openssl Correct. > 2) JYL does not note an exception nor believe it to make any sense to do such Correct. > 3) Without such an exception Debian will not link this Correct. > 4) Ubuntu follows Debian in such policies It looks like it, but I've never seen an official statement. > 5) Without the linkage no ssl is done Correct. > A part of me wants to attack 4 for being a bit like a blind man > following another, but as a loyal Debian and Ubuntu user, I will keep my > mouth shut on such matters. > > Part of me wants to attack 2, while I know that in JYL is standing on > principles that are personally important, refusing to write a sentence > on this matter.... I do not intend to criticize someone for abiding by > their principles in the face of adversity. Nice. :) > Instead I will aim at making 5 imply 2. The argument that follows is > based entirely on premise 1. > > A) MN has code in it which links to the openssl library > B) MN is a GPL program > > Does A + B imply 1? Surly if JYL didn't want this code to be linked up > to openssl no such code would be present. An analysis of the code > demonstrates it is of high quality and does this linkage intentionally. > The site documentation provides further support for a deliberate and > intentional linkage to openssl. The build dependencies even list > openssl as THE ONLY way to satisfy the SSL/TLS option. I would say that > it is clear linking this to openssl is permitted by JYL. > > Given that it appears JYL has granted permission to link this to openssl > by the inclusion of code which performs that function, why exactly do we > need an official statement saying that linkage to openssl and > distribution to others is permitted? > > The only bit that I feel would be needed to close up the leap would be > an entry in the README indicating that JYL recommends linking the > software to an SSL/TLS provider at all times. By saying that SSL > linkage is recommended at all times along with the distribution of the > source, it seems that anyone who is unable to determine if JYL will > allow MN to be distributed along side of openssl is not paying > attention. The key to sliding through the hole is the "at all times." > > See http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html with > particular attention paid to the Debian template at the bottom. My > reading of it boils down to, "Yes you can link this with openssl, with > the caveats expected" (Thanks for the link JYL) > > Question 1: > Did I whiff on the logic? This argument is a form of Original Intent legal > argument, but free from some of the problems as we are just dealing with code > where the intent is a bit more obvious than ethics. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent Your analysis looks reasonable and senseful. > Question 2: > JYL are you willing to add this clause to the README? I expect you believe > that SSL linkage should be done and as such this shouldn't violate your > principles to encourage it. I obviously encourage enabling the SSL/TLS feature, so I would not mind adding something along these lines to the README file. Thanks for this well-written contribution. -- Jean-Yves Lefort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- IMAP/POP3+SSL/TLS are disabled https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/44335 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
