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

Re: cadaver licensing issues: openssl and GPL again



On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:43:17PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > And those are really all the requirements that the LGPL imposes on
> > source code that is linked to the library to form an executable, but is
> > not part of the library itself -- i.e., not much.  It certainly doesn't
> > require that they be available under the same terms, since it explicitly
> > allows closed-source apps to link against LGPL libs; so the OpenSSL
> > license is not really a problem at all.

> I did not get your last message. You are talking about LGPL, OpenSSL is not
> LGPL and it looks like it _is_ a problem for GPL Programs, cause this is all
> this thread is about. It is a modified BSD with advertising. Do you mean the
> LGPL Code (in that case one source file from the glibc!)?

> b) relicense cadaver to allow openssl, but this wont work cause of LGPL code
> included from other sources.

Why would it not work?  My point was that LGPL code doesn't *need* to be
relicensed in order to use it with OpenSSL.  If the author holds
copyright on all the other files, he can relicense however he chooses.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpttsxS4uWfO.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: