From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3208 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Zvi Gilboa Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: High-priority library replacements? Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:53:53 -0400 Message-ID: <51796DB1.3090601@eservices.virginia.edu> References: <20130425041553.GA13951@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130425125121.GN20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <51795F26.6070805@eservices.virginia.edu> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030301080602030403000804" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1366912447 32245 80.91.229.3 (25 Apr 2013 17:54:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:54:07 +0000 (UTC) To: Original-X-From: musl-return-3212-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Apr 25 19:54:08 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UVQMw-0002xv-LX for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:54:06 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 11771 invoked by uid 550); 25 Apr 2013 17:54:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 11763 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2013 17:54:05 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [172.25.136.26] Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3208 Archived-At: --------------030301080602030403000804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/25/2013 12:57 PM, Justin Cormack wrote: > > > On 25 Apr 2013 17:52, "Zvi Gilboa" > wrote: > > > > On 04/25/2013 08:51 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 07:44:39AM -0400, LM wrote: > >>> > >>> incompatible licenses. The openssl library can't be used with a GNU > >>> program unless there's a waiver for it because one of the clauses > in the > >>> openssl license goes against the GNU license principles. The gnutls > >> > >> Not _used_ but _distributed_. The GPL does not restrict use > >> whatsoever (and takes the position that it legally can't do so) so > >> it's fine to use OpenSSL with GPL programs as long as you don't > >> distribute the resulting binary. This is of course a problem for > >> package maintainers/distributions, and distributing both openssl and > >> the GNU program and a script to link them together might even be seen > >> as an infringing activity. > > > > > > What about explicitly loading the library at run-time using > uselib(2) in a plug-in like fashion? Is that also considered > problematic from a GNU perspective? > > There is some disagreement about this and it depends what you > distribute. See here > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/548216/731f7ad0abe52f40/ > > Justin > Thank you for pointing to this excellent article. I initially considered the plug-in-like case easier to assess -- specifically since the loaded library will never be listed as one of the loading object's dependencies -- yet with notions such as interdependency and "collectivity," one can never be on safe ground when loading a GPL'ed library from within a differently-licensed program, open-source or not. Ironically, much of the current thread is about the need to create alternatives to commonly-used GPL'ed libraries, which in itself reminds of past (and present) efforts to create open source alternatives to proprietary libraries and software products. Zvi --------------030301080602030403000804 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 04/25/2013 12:57 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:


On 25 Apr 2013 17:52, "Zvi Gilboa" <zg7s@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
>
> On 04/25/2013 08:51 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 07:44:39AM -0400, LM wrote:
>>>
>>> incompatible licenses.  The openssl library can't be used with a GNU
>>> program unless there's a waiver for it because one of the clauses in the
>>> openssl license goes against the GNU license principles.  The gnutls
>>
>> Not _used_ but _distributed_. The GPL does not restrict use
>> whatsoever (and takes the position that it legally can't do so) so
>> it's fine to use OpenSSL with GPL programs as long as you don't
>> distribute the resulting binary. This is of course a problem for
>> package maintainers/distributions, and distributing both openssl and
>> the GNU program and a script to link them together might even be seen
>> as an infringing activity.
>
>
> What about explicitly loading the library at run-time using uselib(2) in a plug-in like fashion?  Is that also considered problematic from a GNU perspective?

There is some disagreement about this and it depends what you distribute. See here http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/548216/731f7ad0abe52f40/

Justin


Thank you for pointing to this excellent article.  I initially considered the plug-in-like case easier to assess -- specifically since the loaded library will never be listed as one of the loading object's dependencies -- yet with notions such as interdependency and "collectivity," one can never be on safe ground when loading a GPL'ed library from within a differently-licensed program, open-source or not.  Ironically, much of the current thread is about the need to create alternatives to commonly-used GPL'ed libraries, which in itself reminds of past (and present) efforts to create open source alternatives to proprietary libraries and software products.

Zvi
--------------030301080602030403000804--