Getting back to the root of the issue, ssl linkage. To double check my assumptions before going forward: 1) Debian holds that GPL software must make some exception for it to be correctly linked with openssl 2) JYL does not note an exception nor believe it to make any sense to do such 3) Without such an exception Debian will not link this 4) Ubuntu follows Debian in such policies 5) Without the linkage no ssl is done
A part of me wants to attack 4 for being a bit like a blind man following another, but as a loyal Debian and Ubuntu user, I will keep my mouth shut on such matters. Part of me wants to attack 2, while I know that in JYL is standing on principles that are personally important, refusing to write a sentence on this matter.... I do not intend to criticize someone for abiding by their principles in the face of adversity. Instead I will aim at making 5 imply 2. The argument that follows is based entirely on premise 1. A) MN has code in it which links to the openssl library B) MN is a GPL program Does A + B imply 1? Surly if JYL didn't want this code to be linked up to openssl no such code would be present. An analysis of the code demonstrates it is of high quality and does this linkage intentionally. The site documentation provides further support for a deliberate and intentional linkage to openssl. The build dependencies even list openssl as THE ONLY way to satisfy the SSL/TLS option. I would say that it is clear linking this to openssl is permitted by JYL. Given that it appears JYL has granted permission to link this to openssl by the inclusion of code which performs that function, why exactly do we need an official statement saying that linkage to openssl and distribution to others is permitted? The only bit that I feel would be needed to close up the leap would be an entry in the README indicating that JYL recommends linking the software to an SSL/TLS provider at all times. By saying that SSL linkage is recommended at all times along with the distribution of the source, it seems that anyone who is unable to determine if JYL will allow MN to be distributed along side of openssl is not paying attention. The key to sliding through the hole is the "at all times." See http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html with particular attention paid to the Debian template at the bottom. My reading of it boils down to, "Yes you can link this with openssl, with the caveats expected" (Thanks for the link JYL) Question 1: Did I whiff on the logic? This argument is a form of Original Intent legal argument, but free from some of the problems as we are just dealing with code where the intent is a bit more obvious than ethics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent Question 2: JYL are you willing to add this clause to the README? I expect you believe that SSL linkage should be done and as such this shouldn't violate your principles to encourage it. -- IMAP/POP3+SSL/TLS are disabled https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/44335 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
