From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) Subject: Re: Linux vs. RSAREF Date: 7 Jul 1993 03:35:23 GMT
markh@vanbc.wimsey.com (Mark C. Henderson) writes:
}>Questions:
}>1. Can one build RIPEM/RSAREF for Linux?
}>2. Can one use RIPEM/RSAREF on a Linux system?
}>3. Can one distribute a Linux ripem binary?
}>4. Can one distribute a makefile entry for RIPEM under Linux?
}>5. Is selling Motif for Linux a violation of the GPL?
}>6. Can one, "in general" distribute and use, software the FSF considers
}> not "free" for a Linux system.
}
}I think the answer to 1-4 and 6 is "yes", and the answer to 5 is "no.
}I would use as a precedent the fact that FSF blessed the Lucid "Energize"...
While I agree with you, my recent correspondence with rms suggests
that he considers the answer to be 5 and 6 to be "yes" and "no". He
appears to take the position that a binary that requires a GPL'ed
library is a derivative work, even if integration isn't done until
runtime. While I find it hard to imagine what legal grounds there are
for this position, I doubt that any sane vendor is going to produce
software where this is this kind of legal ambiguity. Thus I think
we're going to have to produce a GPL-free libc. Fortunately the
number of modules involved isn't large. I'm hoping that hlu will
coordinate the effort, since we don't need two groups trying to
control libc. My suggestion would be to first contact the authors of
the modules involved and ask them to approve using the LGPL for their
module. The one we know of where this is going to be impossible
is regex, but there's a good free regexp from Henry Spenser that
does not have any licensing problems.