On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:17:20PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 08-11-17 16:06, Solomon Peachy wrote:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:53:32PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
I don't think static linking against libcups is common enough to be a serious concern - CUPS is fairly ubiquitous and easily falls under the "OS-supplied library" exception in the GPL 2. And existing GPL-2-only software that *does* statically link/copy CUPS code can continue to do so with CUPS 2.2.x and earlier.
Someone should reply to that that the OS exception only applies when distributing binaries separate from said OS, not for binaries bundled with the OS, which all Linux distros are (AFAIK, IANAL).
I'm willing to reply to this, but before I (or anyone else) does so, I think it highly prudent to have fedora-legal weigh in first.
Right, good idea, as Michal Stahl pointed out: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What.27s_the_d... indicates that fedora-legal does consider the "OS-supplied library" exception to apply to Fedora pkgs, so it seems I'm wrong here.
Well that page only refers to OpenSSL and even then it points out that other distros have differing opinions. Personally I think it is dubious even for OpenSSL, and if you start broadening it further to claim it applies to what are effectively application level libiraries like libcups, where does it end ? You could just claim it applies to any widely used library in Fedora, at which point you're effectively just trying to nullify all licensing rules, whichs is not acceptable IMHO.
Regards, Daniel