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


George Danchev writes:

> Michael,
> 	Thanks for you clarifications. In fact there is similar jurisdical norm in my 
> country also I was not aware of till that moment.
> 	I believe that the reason to have that in Sofia-SIP's 
> libsofia-sip-ua/su/strtoull.c is that it comes that way from the original 
> contributors like University of California and Sun Microsystems. Whom legal 
> writer counsel do you suggest to talk to ? UCB & Sun's or the Sofia-SIP 
> upstream which code is licensed under LGPL ? I don't believe that that clause 
> makes it non-free as of DFSG, but if you think otherwise, please express your 
> points.

I agree that the "restricted rights" limitation is compatible with
DFSG freedoms.  The end of that paragraph also makes it clear that the
government has the same license rights as anyone else.  Unless someone
else sees an issue, I think the clause as written is clearly free, and
see no need to talk to the UC Regents or Sun to clarify the intention.

> 	Another source of pain could be linking Sofia-SIP with OpenSSL (which is 
> optional by nice to have it there) and as suggested by Mark [1] it is safe to 
> have so called OpenSSL_exception [2]. So the question is - is it fine to link 
> LGPL (not GPL'ed) code with OpenSSL licensed code ? Otherwise I believe we 
> can have that OpenSSL exception with no worries.

The OpenSSL people claim there is no need, but the customary practice
is for any LGPL'ed (or GPL'ed) work that links directly against
OpenSSL to have the "OpenSSL exception" granted by its copyright
holders.  I am not sure what the requirement is for scenarios where
the program also links against other LGPL'ed libraries, as in:

  gcc -o program $(OBJECT_FILES) -lssl -lsome_lgpl_lib

Michael Poole

Reply to: