Re: GNAT GPL vs non-GPL compatible open source license

[Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>]

>>>>> "Maxim" == Maxim Reznik <reznikmm@front.ru> writes:

    Maxim> Brian May wrote:

    >> An argument against GNAT GPL was that you could not distribute
    >> software that linked against non-GPL compatible licenses, such
    >> as openssl.

    Maxim> AFIK openssl is distributed under BSD-style Open Source
    Maxim> licenses.  But BSD license is compatible with GPL. You may
    Maxim> distribute your program under GPL even if it includes
    Maxim> openssl.

That is incorrect.

Looking at the license in Debian:

--- cut ---
  The OpenSSL toolkit stays under a dual license, i.e. both the conditions of
  the OpenSSL License and the original SSLeay license apply to the toolkit.
  See below for the actual license texts. Actually both licenses are BSD-style
  Open Source licenses. In case of any license issues related to OpenSSL
  please contact openssl-core@openssl.org.
--- cut ---

This IIRC presents to problems:

1. The BSD license is the old BSD style license with advertising
   clause.

2. The original SSLeay license has a similar clause.

It is the opinion of the Debian legal time that both of these make the
license GPL incompatible. As such, it would be considered a bug if you
were to package code that uses both of these in Debian.

If on the other hand it used the new BSD license without the
advertising clause, that would be OK (my understanding at least).

    Maxim> Actualy AWS (Ada Web Server) distributed under GPL even it
    Maxim> contains binding to openssl.

That looks like a can a worms to me, I think I will stay away...

I will say though that the copyright holder is allowed to do what they
want with their own code - there is no need for the copyright holder
to comply with their own license - the problem exists when third
parties want to be able to distribute the code with incompatible
licenses.

In the case of programmers using libgnat, we don't hold the copyright
for the library so we have to follow the legal requirements for
redistribution.

Also, at one stage there was a FAQ on openssl's website stating that
the openssl license was not GPL incompatible (not sure if it is still
there or not). The Debian legal time strongly disagreed with their
interpretation of the GPL.

Another twist: my understanding is that complying with the GPL
requirements is needed when using rights that are normally revoked by
copyright law but expressly allowed by the GPL. Such as distributing
the product. Using a product you already have (assuming you don't have
a contract that specifies otherwise) is not restricted by copyright
law. So if I compile my own code and don't distribute it (ie. use it
exclusively for myself), I think I can use whatever licenses I want
to... Even no license. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer - this is my understanding only from
talking to various sources including an Australian lawyer.
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>