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

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
| vanishes.

So if you have:

Package: foo
Depends libfoo, libc6

Package: libfoo
Depends: libbar | libbar-ssl, libc6

Package: libbar
Depends: libc6

Package: libbar-ssl
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:

Package: libfoo
Depends: libbar-ssl | libbar, libc6


Tollef Fog Heen                                                        ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are      : :' :
                                                                      `. `' 

Reply to: