On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 08:25:41PM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 09:17:44AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 09:53:34AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > > > > Nice, so we should check that any linked GPL library directly (obviuolsy) or > > > > > indirectly (with N=1,2,3... levels of indirection) linked against > > > > > openssl adds the exception. > > > > No, we should simply not be linking libmysqlclient against OpenSSL. The > > > > exemption was needed because there exists software that uses both > > > > libmysqlclient and libssl, but making libmysqlclient itself use libssl just > > > > because we now have the exemption will cause licensing problems for > > > > applications which currently do *not* depend on libssl. > > > That's clear, I meant simply that if program A links libB which links libC > > > which links libssl, than both A, libB and libC should add the exception, > > > isn't it? That's independently from having A using libssl functions > > > directly or not. > > That's true; I'm merely pointing out the importance of not turning > > libmysqlclient into libC here. > So what if we had two editions of libmysqlclient, one of them > ssl-enabled and the other - as currently - not? That would allow > using ssl whenever possible. I think that could be done, without > breaking things. That's funny. Didn't we spend all that time since Woody merging lib-*-ssl back into lib-*? -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE 8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) Paul.Hampson@Anu.edu.au "No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?" -- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean" This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. -----------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature