[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:
> If the GPL'd source is only useful with GPL-incompatible libfoo, then
> you and the shipper of libfoo are combining to ship a program which
> contains incompatible licenses, and this is not allowed.
> If the GPL'd source is useful with various equivalent libraries, some
> GPL-incompatible, some not, then the shipper of the GPL'd source is
> not breaking any rules, because they are not necessarily intending to
> combine their code with the incompatible code.
> If you are shipping *binaries* however, which declare shared library
> dependencies on the GPL-incompatible library, then that excuse
> vanishes.

Agreed to all of this.

Unfortunately, it still doesn't answer the question I asked about
transitive linking, where there is no shared library dependency from the
GPL application to a GPL incompatible library.

But I think you're repeating the same answers, and I'm repeating the
same questions, so maybe we should just drop it.
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: