Austin Ziegler wrote:
> Lawyers will agree that there's a distribution incompatibility since
> the GNU GPL doesn't permit attribution requirements and OpenSSL
> requires it under two different licences.

If Debian are worried about infringement, then who do they think is 
going to sue them?

(1) The OpenSSL copyright holders?

http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2

Clearly, they see it as an issue of the GPL holders needing to extend 
their licence, not OpenSSL intending to restrict what GPL authors do.

'If you develop open source software that uses OpenSSL, you may find it 
useful to choose an other license than the GPL, or state explicitly that 
"This program is released under the GPL with the additional exemption 
that compiling, linking, and/or using OpenSSL is allowed."'

Anyway, if the OpenSSL licence requires attribution, surely that applies 
only to OpenSSL itself? Do people think that it is viral in the way that 
the GPL is viral?

(2) The Ruby/FreeRADIUS/etc people?

Their code explicitly does things like #include <openssl.h>. It is quite 
obviously intended to be used and linked with OpenSSL.

They might be worried if someone tried to redistribute Ruby+OpenSSL 
under a single combined licence which was more restrictive than the GPL. 
But Debian isn't doing that; they aggregate a whole load of software, 
each distributed under its own licence. Is there an all-encompassing 
"Debian Licence"? I didn't think so, and I wouldn't use Debian/Ubuntu if 
I discovered there were.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.