4 ms·

> It is also the opinion of the Alpine license review community that the OpenSSL 1.x license was already compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 due to the system

> It is also the opinion of the Alpine license review community that the OpenSSL 1.x license was already compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 due to the system library exception: it is generally not possible to install an Alpine system without having an OpenSSL implementation, so it clearly qualifies as a system library. The text of the system library exception in GPLv2: > However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Emphasis on unless that component itself accompanies the executable. There's a long history of discussions of this clause, and many of them make the point that this exception is designed to allow FOSS projects to distribute software for proprietary OSes (e.g. link to proprietary Windows or UNIX libraries), but not for the OS distributors themselves to be able to distribute FOSS code alongside their proprietary OS. (Note that the GPLv3 broadened this exception, and no longer limits it on the basis of "unless that component itself accompanies the executable". So it's entirely possible that OpenSSL could be considered a system library for the purposes of GPLv3, while not being considered a system library for the purposes of GPLv2.)

anthk 5y ago
LibreSSL is the default SSL spec for OpenBSD's base, so it should be compatible with everything.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  OpenBSD won't have anything under copyleft licenses anyway. The OpenSSL license has never been an issue for BSDs; it has primarily been an issue for Linux distributions and other distributors of software under copyleft licenses.
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    You can include BSD licensed code in GPL code, but not the other way around right?
    - danudey 5y ago
      This is correct. The typical restrictions on BSD code are: 1. If you distribute source code you need to retain the copyright notice, the license conditions, and the disclaimer 2. If you distribute binaries you must include those in the documentation 3. (sometimes) You can't use the contributors to promote your software (e.g. "Powered by the fantastic LibreSSL library!")
    - bonetruck 5y ago
      Correct.
    - JoshTriplett 5y ago
      BSD-licensed code yes. But LibreSSL and OpenSSL (pre-3.0) are not under a BSD license; they're under a custom license that's GPL-incompatible.
      - rubyist5eva 5y ago
        good to know
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      Incorrect. You may distribute BSD-licensed code alongside GPL code, and you can release your modifications to a BSD-licensed work under the GPL, but there is no possibility of subsuming the BSD-licensed code in the GPL-licensed code. Any attempt to do so would constitute copyright infringement against the original authors. An example may be illustrative. If your GPL project uses a BSD-licensed single-header-file library, and you distribute that library's source with your source, downstream users are free to take that library from your source repository and use it for their own purposes without abiding by the GPL. Nor may you change the license and copyright notice in the header file in order to claim that the library is GPL, because if you do so you will be violating the conditions of the BSD license, leaving you with no right to use or distribute the software at all.
      - bscphil 5y ago
        You're pulling at straws here. If I'm writing a program under GPL, and I want to incorporate a component with a BSD license, I can do that and continue to license the entire program to my users under the GPL. If I'm writing a program under BSD, and I want to incorporate a component with a GPL license, I can't do that and continue to license the entire program to my users under the BSD. That's the difference, and surely that's what the OP is referring to. Suppose someone comes along and finds my program, and wants to modify it and release it without providing the source. Before, when I could license the whole program as BSD, they could do that. After I incorporated a single file's worth of GPL code, they can't do that. Because it's no longer possible for me to license my program as BSD. Also, note that there's absolutely no guarantee that users can "take that library from your source repository and use it for their own purposes without abiding by the GPL". I am under no obligation to provide a BSD-licensed copy of the original library. If I make modifications to the library before I push it to my repository, I do still have to keep the copyright notice intact, but I am not providing anyone with a BSD library. My modified version of it is only GPL.
  - krylon 5y ago
    AFAIR, OpenBSD has included the GPL-licensed gcc for a long time. They have a clear preference for more permissive license, but it would seem the GPL is not a problem as such, the OpenBSD developers just prefer more liberal alternatives where possible. I'm not taking sides here, the OpenBSD developers have famously stopped supporting hardware when the vendors did not supply documentation under acceptable conditions. They obviously are very serious about the "Open" part.
    - anthk 5y ago
      OpenBSD discarded base gcc. Now they are pro-ISC everywhere. They included gcc for convenience in some architectures.
      - krylon 5y ago
        I know, but they included it for a pretty long time, so I think distributing GPL code as part of a BSD project is kosher, legally speaking. (Same goes for FreeBSD, although they, too, replaced gcc with clang some time ago.)
    - chasil 5y ago
      Clang is now used on the x86-64 variant of OpenBSD. I'm fairly confident that gcc is still available in the ports collection. On architectures that clang doesn't support, it's (likely) still gcc.
      - krylon 5y ago
        I know. Last time I checked, gcc still was the default C compiler on architectures clang did not support, but it was a couple years ago, and they discontinued a few architectures since (vax, alpha, probably others?). Yes, gcc is still available through ports/packages, but the point was if it's okay to distribute GPL code as part of the base system if the base as a whole is BSD/MIT licensed.
        chasil 5y ago

anthk 5y ago

LibreSSL is the default SSL spec for OpenBSD's base, so it should be compatible with everything.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
OpenBSD won't have anything under copyleft licenses anyway. The OpenSSL license has never been an issue for BSDs; it has primarily been an issue for Linux distributions and other distributors of software under copyleft licenses.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  You can include BSD licensed code in GPL code, but not the other way around right?
  - danudey 5y ago
    This is correct. The typical restrictions on BSD code are: 1. If you distribute source code you need to retain the copyright notice, the license conditions, and the disclaimer 2. If you distribute binaries you must include those in the documentation 3. (sometimes) You can't use the contributors to promote your software (e.g. "Powered by the fantastic LibreSSL library!")
  - bonetruck 5y ago
    Correct.
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    BSD-licensed code yes. But LibreSSL and OpenSSL (pre-3.0) are not under a BSD license; they're under a custom license that's GPL-incompatible.
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      good to know
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Incorrect. You may distribute BSD-licensed code alongside GPL code, and you can release your modifications to a BSD-licensed work under the GPL, but there is no possibility of subsuming the BSD-licensed code in the GPL-licensed code. Any attempt to do so would constitute copyright infringement against the original authors. An example may be illustrative. If your GPL project uses a BSD-licensed single-header-file library, and you distribute that library's source with your source, downstream users are free to take that library from your source repository and use it for their own purposes without abiding by the GPL. Nor may you change the license and copyright notice in the header file in order to claim that the library is GPL, because if you do so you will be violating the conditions of the BSD license, leaving you with no right to use or distribute the software at all.
    - bscphil 5y ago
      You're pulling at straws here. If I'm writing a program under GPL, and I want to incorporate a component with a BSD license, I can do that and continue to license the entire program to my users under the GPL. If I'm writing a program under BSD, and I want to incorporate a component with a GPL license, I can't do that and continue to license the entire program to my users under the BSD. That's the difference, and surely that's what the OP is referring to. Suppose someone comes along and finds my program, and wants to modify it and release it without providing the source. Before, when I could license the whole program as BSD, they could do that. After I incorporated a single file's worth of GPL code, they can't do that. Because it's no longer possible for me to license my program as BSD. Also, note that there's absolutely no guarantee that users can "take that library from your source repository and use it for their own purposes without abiding by the GPL". I am under no obligation to provide a BSD-licensed copy of the original library. If I make modifications to the library before I push it to my repository, I do still have to keep the copyright notice intact, but I am not providing anyone with a BSD library. My modified version of it is only GPL.
- krylon 5y ago
  AFAIR, OpenBSD has included the GPL-licensed gcc for a long time. They have a clear preference for more permissive license, but it would seem the GPL is not a problem as such, the OpenBSD developers just prefer more liberal alternatives where possible. I'm not taking sides here, the OpenBSD developers have famously stopped supporting hardware when the vendors did not supply documentation under acceptable conditions. They obviously are very serious about the "Open" part.
  - anthk 5y ago
    OpenBSD discarded base gcc. Now they are pro-ISC everywhere. They included gcc for convenience in some architectures.
    - krylon 5y ago
      I know, but they included it for a pretty long time, so I think distributing GPL code as part of a BSD project is kosher, legally speaking. (Same goes for FreeBSD, although they, too, replaced gcc with clang some time ago.)
  - chasil 5y ago
    Clang is now used on the x86-64 variant of OpenBSD. I'm fairly confident that gcc is still available in the ports collection. On architectures that clang doesn't support, it's (likely) still gcc.
    - krylon 5y ago
      I know. Last time I checked, gcc still was the default C compiler on architectures clang did not support, but it was a couple years ago, and they discontinued a few architectures since (vax, alpha, probably others?). Yes, gcc is still available through ports/packages, but the point was if it's okay to distribute GPL code as part of the base system if the base as a whole is BSD/MIT licensed.
      - chasil 5y ago