Re: libgcrypt brain dead?
Ben Hutchings <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 12:03 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The primary problem with using OpenSSL with OpenLDAP is NSS and PAM
>> modules, which pull the libraries into just about any GPL'd (or
>> other-licensed) package in the distribution in one way or another.
> Applications that use NSS/PAM, and individual NSS/PAM modules, are
> useful without the other and it is a matter of user configuration
> whether they are used together at all. The OpenLDAP modules are not
> used by default. So I don't see that copyleft licences of applications
> using NSS/PAM can possibly extend to them.
My understanding is that that's not the standard that Debian has
historically applied, and I don't think it's particularly useful for
anyone who isn't a lawyer (such as myself) to debate it.
I know lots of people have strong opinions on where the line should be
drawn with license compatibility when shared libraries and dynamic loading
are involved. I personally don't believe I have any idea what an actual
legal judgement is likely to say and just try to follow the most recent
and credible legal advice that I've seen, since expressing any opinion
would be pure speculation on my part.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>