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:
pgpOtIqMmPCHC.pgp
Description: PGP signature