Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> schrieb/wrote:
> > This is all irrelevant. The issue is that you can't distribute GPL
> > binaries *linked against* GPL-incompatible libraries.
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:16:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> It's more complicated than that when dynamic linking is involved.
Maybe.
> It ultimatly does not make sense if you can choose one of several
> libraries (with different licenses) that can be dynamically linked
> against a program without recompiling it.
Maybe.
> For example, you distribute a program linked against "libcurl". It works
> with "libcurl-nossl", "libcurl-gnutls" -- but also "libcurl-ssl". Is it
> linked against a GPL-incompatible library?
Maybe.
The answer to this question depends on information you've not provided.
> > The operating system clause makes an exception for this, but it's not
> > available when the program is packaged along with the libraries.
>
> The GPL does not say "packaged along with", it says "accompanied with".
> The later suggests a closer relationship than mere aggregation on the
> same distriution medium.
True. Utterly irrelevant to the current context, but true.
"Dynamically linked against a library" is certainly not the same thing as
"mere aggregation" with that library.
And, yes, this can be an annoying issue to deal with.
> You could only claim that something is "normally" part of the os when it
> is not.
"What's a part of the os" is also utterly irrelevant in the current
context.
--
Raul
Reply to: