[Jessie-discuss] Re: Licence exception terms not clear

[Casey Marshall]

>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Bloggs <address@hidden> writes:

Fred> Dear Jessie Developer(s)
Fred> I stumbled on your page whilst looking for a JSSE
Fred> implementation that could be compiled into a
Fred> proprietary product using GCJ and libgcj.

Fred> I read the terms on the licence with the two
Fred> exceptions and I am a little confused as to whether I
Fred> can link and build a proprietary Microsoft Windows exe
Fred> with your library.  The reason I am confused is that
Fred> the first exception statement appears to directly
Fred> contradict the second exception statement.

The first paragraph of the exception is an introduction, that states
that you cannot link Jessie with proprietary software *under the
normal rules of the GPL*. The second paragraph is the exception
itself, that gives you a special permission to link Jessie with
independent, proprietary modules to produce an executable. This
exception is, by the way, the same exception used for libgcj, GNU
Classpath, and GNU Crypto.

That is, yes, you can link Jessie with your product. I'm sorry if the
first paragraph was confusing, but I quoted the entire linking
exception clause and not just the exception itself. I think I will
remove the first paragraph from the web page.

Fred> I note the libgcj and the gnucrypto stuff seem to olny
Fred> have the second exception allowing it to be linked and
Fred> built into a proprietary exe which does not fall under
Fred> the GPL.

That is not correct; the web pages for those packages might not quote
the entire exception text (and I'm certain that the GNU Crypto page
does not), but each source file in those packages has the full
two-paragraph statement in its copyright header.

Hope this helps!

-- 
Casey Marshall || address@hidden