From: Andreas Metzler <
ametzler@...>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:27:13 +0100
I'm no lawyer, so my analysis may be wrong, but:
* The illegality of any linkage between lynx and the gnutls openssl
wrapper is based on lynx (binary or source) being a derivative work
of said wrapper
* lynx is capable of being built against the older version, and may well
have been in the most recent binary packages
* Moreover, as the gnutls openssl wrapper is designed to emulate another
interface, packages based on either shouldn't be considered a
derivative work
* GPLv2 and GPLv3 both allow the user to do anything they want to the
software providing no distribution takes place
* Therefore since lynx works against the older version, it cannot be said
to be a derivative work in non-dynamically linked form, and moreover the
dynamically linked image in the user's memory is authorized by the
aforementioned non-distribution rule (GPL-2 section 0 para 2, GPL-3
section 2, para 2)
Therefore, although the current situation may be undesirable in the
long run, it ought to be not in violation of either licence, right?
That said it's probably untenable enough to warrant an RC bug, but I'm
curious as to if there's any gaping hole in my logic :)
Please CC on replies; I'm not subscribed to debian-legal.
Thanks,
Bryan Donlan