License change for ghostscript

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 15:03 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 08/05/2009 02:38 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> > Apropos, what's the license in case a GPL package links against OpenSSL?
> > GPL with exceptions or what? Or is it even allowed?
> 
> So, in this specific case, I'm still arguing with Red Hat Legal, and we 
> have not determined our final stance.
> 
> In the interim, if you have a specific instance of this scenario, you 
> should ask the upstream of the GPL project to add a linking exception 
> for OpenSSL, something like:
> 
> 
> In addition, as a special exception, <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> gives permission 
> to link the code of its release of <CODE> with the OpenSSL project's 
> "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it that use the same 
> license as the "OpenSSL" library), and distribute the linked 
> executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all 
> respects for all of the code used other than "OpenSSL". If you modify 
> this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, 
> but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete 
> this exception.

If you're feeling extra cynical, Debian does have a defined position on
this; they're on the conservative side of the fence, they don't consider
it acceptable for code licensed under the GPL with no exceptions to link
against OpenSSL. So if you don't want to go to the hassle, and the
package in question is in Debian, just notify the Debian maintainer in
some public fashion (file a bug...) and then they're obliged by Debian's
policies to go to all the trouble for you. Then you can steal their
work. =)

ahh, the joys of open source!

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net