Tyler MacDonald wrote:
>Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> wrote:
>
>
>>But the way Douglas' message read, it was only GPL packages that should
>>be affected, and we're not GPL. Or did I or Douglas misunderstand the
>>situation?
>>
>>
>
> It's freeradius that's GPL. Then we break GPL rules by importing
>OpenSSL. Guilt by association. :)
>
>
IANAL, but this seems pretty problematic an interpretation of the GPL.
By this interpretation, coding a connector against UNIX ODBC would be
OK, but the user would be forbidden to use ODBC drivers that link
against OpenSSL. I cannot therefore imagine a circumstance where the
parent GPL application could be considered a dirivative work.
Indeed indirect linking is a pretty common GPL dodge, given NVidia's
approach to drivers.
What really seems to be happening here is that the Debian community
seems to be taking a stand which has little to do with the wording of
the GPL and more of an issue of "we don't like what NVidia is doing wrt
Linux drivers, so we are going to implement a policy that prevents it."
We are, unfortunately, caught in the crossfire.
My own opinion is this: The Debian crowd are often technical enough
they can build whatever they want from source. Debian is a niche
distribution and not something we should spend too much time worrying
about whether our software can be indirectly linked with GPL apps on
their site.
BTW, does this also mean that no GNU Readline is available in the Debian
versions of psql? Or am I missing something?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting
