Re: Netatalk and SSL
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| 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
So if you have:
Depends libfoo, libc6
Depends: libbar | libbar-ssl, libc6
Depends: libc6, libssl
(Assume that foo, libfoo and libbar are all licenced under the GPL,
libbar with a licence exception allowing it to be linked to openssl.
Also assume that libbar and libbar-ssl are ABI-compatible.)
Is this allowed? If not, why not? Would it be allowed if the package
stanza for libfoo read:
Depends: libbar-ssl | libbar, libc6
Tollef Fog Heen ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :