"Anthony W. Youngman" <deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In message <he2uoo$om...@ger.gmane.org>, Raúl Sánchez Siles > <rasas...@gmail.com> writes > >> If it's the GPL which won't let you link to OpenSSL, then add an > >> OpenSSL exemption to v3. > > > > As far as I know, this is not possible, in other words, > > incompatible. > > Well, if that's the case, then GPL v2 plus OpenSSL exemption is also > impossible :-) > > Bear in mind I said that it's the AUTHORS who dictate terms. If they > say "it's okay to link to OpenSSL", then it's okay. End of. (What the > GPL says is IRRELEVANT!!!!) Perhaps a more precise way of saying this is: The GPL grants to the recipient a set of permissions otherwise reserved to the copyright holder. The copyright holder can always grant *more* permissions; the effective license terms then become a superset of the GPL's terms. What the copyright holder doesn't get to do is restrict actions not reserved to them by copyright. That's not what is being discussed here; but it's best not to generalise too much. -- \ “Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything | `\ that's even remotely true!” —Homer, _The Simpsons_ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
