Re: cadaver licensing issues: openssl and GPL again
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
> against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
> your GPL binary is not shipped together with your libraries. Debian
> does not make this distinction; unless we were to make a new gpl-non-ssl
> archive section, everything that we ship in main is part of a single OS
> and is shipped together.
Hmmm, I see the wording:
"unless that component [of the OS] itself accompanies the executable"
Surely if your interpretation of this is correct, the *BSD projects
could not redistribute GPL code linked against their C libraries, which
they currently do with GCC and more?
> Also, if the only barrier to relicensing is the presence of third-party
> LGPL code, this is not a barrier at all, since the LGPL permits linking
> this code against any other object files you choose.
Can you explain why? The LGPL seems to have exactly the same restriction
as the GPL about linking against components of the operating system.
The suggestion of adding support to cadaver (actually to neon) for a
replacement SSL library is a good one, and I would welcome such a