just curious, is linking against LibreSSL allowed ? os x Tunnelblick is shipped with both LibreSSL and OpenSSL builds, but neither of them is "system" lib as far as I know.
вс, 15 янв. 2023 г. в 21:35, Arne Schwabe <a...@rfc2549.org>: > Am 15.01.23 um 16:22 schrieb James Bottomley: > > On Sun, 2023-01-15 at 15:22 +0100, Arne Schwabe wrote: > >> > >>> If that's the source of this issue, then I think there's a > >>> misunderstanding about the problem the OpenSSL exception is > >>> addressing. The problem was that the OpenSSL licence required > >>> additional conditions be imposed on the binary as a whole, even > >>> though openssl itself was a system library. > >>> > >>> https://spdx.org/licenses/OpenSSL.html > >>> > >>> Specifically the advertising and redistribution clauses. The > >>> OpenSSL exception is to make GPLv2 compatible with the OpenSSL > >>> licence's additional restrictions, not the other way around. There > >>> is still a considerable body of opinion that thinks the system > >>> exception covers this case as well, but just in case, people added > >>> the OpenSSL compatibility exception to GPLv2. > >>> > >>> The goal of changing OpenSSL to Apache-2 was to remove those > >>> additional restrictions and make the library behave like a normal > >>> linked library from a licensing point of view. The Apache-2 > >>> licence imposes no additional restrictions on the binary as a > >>> whole, which is why no exception is necessary. Specifically the > >>> patent retaliation and indemnity clauses which some people think > >>> cause the cut and paste incompatibility don't apply to the binary > >>> as a whole, only to the Apache2 pieces. > >> > >> > >> Yes. That is my understanding as well. But I think where we have been > >> told > > > > Who told you? Because I'd like to tackle this misinformation at source > > before it spreads further than openvpn. > > > >> and see the problem different is that the GPL2 covers the whole > >> binary and also the Apache2 licensed parts. > > > > It does under section 2 for any component that can't be classified as a > > system library, yes. But the system library exception is the way you > > avoid this for linking with most libraries. > > So we have the same interpretation and just disagree if mbed TLS and > OpenSSL can be seen as system library on non-Linux/non-BSD systems. > > >> And then the restrictions become a problem. > > > > Only if the library you're linking with isn't a system library, which I > > think we can all agree in not the case on every Linux distribution > > because they all ship both openssl and mbedtls as part of the > > distribution. > > > >> So you are right in the sense that the Apache2 is just > >> a normal library to link for most purposes, the GPL licenses are > >> special in the way that they want to cover the whole source > >> code/binary. Sometimes this feature of the GPL is called viral by > >> opponents of the license. > > > > Not for system libraries ... that's what the system library exception > > is all about. > > Yes but neither mbed TLS nor OpenSSL is a system library on Windows or > macOS. And even mbed TLS is sketchy as many distributions do not have in > their base system. So just assume, at least for the sake of argument > that they are not. In that case I think we need this exception. So I am > asking if you are willing to allow this exception to the license even > though you think it is unnecessary to make the people that think that it > is needed happy? > > Arne > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openvpn-devel mailing list > Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel >
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
