* Chris Travers (chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >It says, in no > >uncertain terms, that GPL programs must come with complete source of > >themselves and all dependancies under terms compatible with the GPL. > >The advertising clause in OpenSSL is not acceptable. > > > > > No it doesn't. Otherwise you couldn't release a GPL'd program for > Windows. It actually says that the derivative work as a whole must be > released under the GPL. Whatever this means is up to the courts, > unfortunately. The FSF has their opinion on their web site, but > ultimately the only one who gets to interpret the license > authoritatively is the court. Because nobody wants to fight there is no > clear guidance. The courts are pretty likely to strongly consider the copyright holder's opinion of the license when deciding how to interpret it. The fact that it hasn't been well-tested in court doesn't mean it's not something to be concerned with. Debian may be a little more cautious about this than some other Linux distributions but if anything in their case it's probably sensible since they don't have the funds to fight a court battle. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
