Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
Freek Dijkstra <debian_public@macfreek.nl> wrote:
> So if indeed netatalk contains executable code from openssl, then according
> to #2, the redistributed binary must have the openssl-licence, and that is
> not allowed. However, just thinking about how dynamic libraries work, I
> belief there is no executable code of the library being called involved,
> even though the header files are used (since they only contain definitions,
> but don't lead to executable code).
>
> Could someone confirm or deny this?
The FSF disagree - their claim is that even with dynamic linking the
libraries must be GPL compatible. Nobody has so far been willing to have
a lawsuit over this, so it's not possible to confirm or deny this.
Believing the FSF is safer than not doing so, so we take the low-risk
approach.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: