Re: openssl vs. GPL question
On 6/5/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > since the OpenSSL shim for GNU TLS was added to the GPL (not LGPL)
> > libgnutls-extra. (It's possible that it has since been moved into the
> > LGPL portion, but I don't think so.)
> The LGPL contains an explicit provision that allows relicensing
> to GPL (section 3 LGPL). Wouldn't that solve the problem?
"Upgrading" libyaz to the GPL would be fine by me (as far as I'm
concerned, the GPL is actually the more permissive license when
competently construed under US law), but I doubt that the maintainer
(and other libyaz-dependent application writers) would go for it.
Building Alexandria statically with a putative libyaz / OpenSSL shim /
GNU TLS combination, separately from the libyaz package, doesn't sound
like a good solution.