Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException

On 2021-4-17 13:42 , Jason Liu wrote: On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:21 PM Joshua Root > wrote: OpenSSLException conflicts with everything except the OpenSSL license. Wait, what? If OpenSSLException conflicts with everything except the OpenSSL license, doesn't that

Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:21 PM Joshua Root wrote: > OpenSSLException conflicts with everything except the OpenSSL license. > Wait, what? If OpenSSLException conflicts with everything except the OpenSSL license, doesn't that make it tautologically equivalent to the OpenSSL license itself? (i.e.

Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException

On Apr 16, 2021, at 21:30, Joshua Root wrote: >> And is this really true that a GPL-2 program like Hydrogen is not >> distributable if it links with a GPL-3 / LGPL-3 library like Qt5? > > Yep. That's why the FSF has always recommended licensing under version n or > later of the GPL rather than

Re: OpenSSL GPL conflict

On Apr 16, 2021, at 21:25, Fred Wright wrote: >> I'm not aware of the Oracle / Google ruling. > > They ruled in favor of Google, meaning that copying Oracle's Java header > files to use in conjunction with Google's Java implementation did not > constitute a violation of Oracle's copyright.

Re: OpenSSL GPL conflict (was: Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException)

On 2021-4-17 12:25 , Fred Wright wrote: Yes, I'm aware of that alleged explanation.  But the key point is that it relates to the *redistribution* of OpenSSL, and I contend that merely dynamically linking against a non-bundled OpenSSL library does not constitute "redistribution" of said

Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException

On 2021-4-17 12:09 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: Ok, right. So I would need to get info on qt5-qtbase in this case and see that it is licensed LGPL-3 or GPL-3 or OpenSSLException and realize that GPL-3 conflicts with GPL-2. Is there a way that the message could be improved to mention the conflict

Re: OpenSSL GPL conflict (was: Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException)

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Apr 16, 2021, at 20:33, Fred Wright wrote: [...] For that matter, IMO this whole business of the OpenSSL license conflicting with the GPL is a bunch of nonsense (at least in the typical MacPorts scenario). Since when does *dynamically* linking

Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException

On Apr 16, 2021, at 20:21, Joshua Root wrote: > On 2021-4-17 11:16 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> https://build.macports.org/builders/ports-10.15_x86_64-builder/builds/55652/steps/gather-archives/logs/stdio >>> "hydrogen" is not distributable because its license "GPL-2" conflicts with >>> license

Re: OpenSSL GPL conflict (was: Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException)

On Apr 16, 2021, at 20:33, Fred Wright wrote: > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> https://build.macports.org/builders/ports-10.15_x86_64-builder/builds/55652/steps/gather-archives/logs/stdio >> >>> "hydrogen" is not distributable because its license "GPL-2" conflicts with >>>

Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Ryan Schmidt wrote: https://build.macports.org/builders/ports-10.15_x86_64-builder/builds/55652/steps/gather-archives/logs/stdio "hydrogen" is not distributable because its license "GPL-2" conflicts with license "OpenSSLException" of dependency "qt5-qtbase" Does this

Re: License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException

On 2021-4-17 11:16 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: https://build.macports.org/builders/ports-10.15_x86_64-builder/builds/55652/steps/gather-archives/logs/stdio "hydrogen" is not distributable because its license "GPL-2" conflicts with license "OpenSSLException" of dependency "qt5-qtbase" Does this

License GPL-2 conflicts with OpenSSLException

https://build.macports.org/builders/ports-10.15_x86_64-builder/builds/55652/steps/gather-archives/logs/stdio > "hydrogen" is not distributable because its license "GPL-2" conflicts with > license "OpenSSLException" of dependency "qt5-qtbase" Does this make sense or is there an error in the