[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Netatalk and SSL

This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes:
> >> The fact that this is transitive linking means that it is perfectly
> >> legal to distribute gnucash *source*.  
> >
> > ENOPARSE, sorry.  I can't imagine how it _could_ affect the source,
> > since the source doesn't link to anything - it's just a build system and
> > source code.
> You cannot distribute GPL'd source which has been modified to link to
> a GPL-incompatible library when the only way the source would be
> useful is if it is, in fact, linked to that library.

Ah, I see the confusion (or maybe have some of my own).  I am not talking
about a GPL application that has been modified to use libssl.  I am
talking about a GPL application that uses a library, and that library
could or could not link to libssl - the higher level application does
not itself care or notice.  I am not talking about changing the GPL
application to directly use the GPL incompatible library.  Maybe that
applies to gnucash, but I'm trying to understand the more general case.

> > I thought that I had read somewhere that the standard advice for making
> > a non-free application talk to a GPL library was through a 'shim'
> > library, so that the symbols aren't loaded together in a non-free/GPL
> > incompatible application.  
> Except, they *are* loaded together.
> Making "shim" libraries does not change the licensing rules at all,
> which for the GPL, apply to the complete program.

So then how is it that the NVidia drivers and so forth aren't illegal?
This is precisely how many non-free or GPL incompatible applications
communicate with GPL'ed ones.
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: