[Olaf van der Spek] > > I thought that if the interface matches the user can link whatever > > he wants, because he doesn't (re)distribute the results. [Steve Langasek] > There isn't universal agreement on this point, and it's never > actually been tested in court. There isn't? I thought this has been standard GPL lore for a very long time - if you link to an *interface* which has a GPL-compliant implementation, it does not matter if you also are incidentally runtime- compatible with a non-GPL-compatible implementation. Some have argued back and forth about how useful or bug-free the GPL-compliant implementation must be before it "counts", but that seems not to be an issue here - both SSL backends are said to be functional, if not 100% feature- and bug-equivalent. From a common-sense standpoint, it's pretty hard to argue that some software is "derived" from openssl if any user could run the same binary with only gnutls on his system.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature