On 08.11.2017 15:53, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 08-11-17 15:06, Solomon Peachy wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 08:54:03AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> Is there anyone who could raise concerns to Apple about the license >>> change? Maybe convince them to dual-license it or something? >> >> Well, Michael Sweet (mswet AT apple.com) remains the primary developer >> of CUPS, and this has been raised on the CUPS mailing list in response >> to the announcement he posted. >> >> Here's the latest response [1] on that thread: >> >> I don't think static linking against libcups is common enough to be a >> serious concern - CUPS is fairly ubiquitous and easily falls under the >> "OS-supplied library" exception in the GPL 2. And existing GPL-2-only >> software that *does* statically link/copy CUPS code can continue to do >> so with CUPS 2.2.x and earlier. > > Someone should reply to that that the OS exception only applies when > distributing binaries separate from said OS, not for binaries bundled > with the OS, which all Linux distros are (AFAIK, IANAL). apparently Fedora Legal FAQ has a different opinion: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What.27s_the_deal_with_the_OpenSSL_license.3F "However, we consider that the OpenSSL library is a system library, as defined by the GPL, on Fedora and therefore we are allowed to ship GPL software that links to the OpenSSL library." _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
