From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9386db0d319744cb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL vs non-GPL compatible open source license References: From: Brian May Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:15:10 +1000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:VfmmciCSjb/AYAoPnkr3Xltfp+0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au X-Trace: news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com 1129335310 202.173.153.89 (15 Oct 2005 10:15:10 +1000) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pipenetworks.com X-Abuse-Info: Please forward all headers to enable your complaint to be properly processed. Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!snewsf0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net!news.netspace.net.au!news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5674 Date: 2005-10-15T10:15:10+10:00 List-Id: >>>>> "Maxim" == Maxim Reznik 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