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

Re: License change for ghostscript



On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:15 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> 
> > > I should probably talk to Spot about that.
> > 
> > So, the rule here is that we don't take outside linking into effect when 
> > marking the package's licensing. We go by what the source in the tarball 
> > tells us. Otherwise, it would become massively too complicated to figure 
> > it out for a lot of packages.
> 
> I see that, but it presents a rather significant problem.
> 
> Say we have something whose own license is LGPLv2+ - let's call it
> Component B - linking against something whose license is GPLv3
> (Component C).
> 
> Component B is then effectively GPLv3, but our license tags will not
> reflect that. If there is something _else_ that in turn links against
> Component B - call it Component A - and we want to find out whether
> there's a license conflict, we will treat Component B, for license
> checking purposes, as if it were LGPLv2+. But, for our purposes, it no
> longer is - we can only consider it to be GPLv3. So we may say that
> there's no problem with Component A linking against Component B, when
> actually there is...

Apropos, what's the license in case a GPL package links against OpenSSL?
GPL with exceptions or what? Or is it even allowed?
-- 
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola fedoraproject org


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