Re: transitive GPL (exim4, OpenSSL, mySQL and others)

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

Marc Haber <mh+debian-legal@zugschlus.de> writes:

> If both M and P were GPL with OpenSSL exception, but L were GPL
> without OpenSSL exception, this linking would be a violation of L's
> license?`By virtue of P linking to M and L and M linking to OpenSSL?

That's my understanding, yes.

This is why things like "OpenSSL exclusion clause" are a stop-gap
measure only; the license incompatibility continues to be a problem
for any new code combined with the work, and it's easy to overlook
that.

In my view, the ideal solution from a reduce-licensing-headaches
perspective is to get all the code in a work licensed compatibly with
no need for exception clauses, either by relicensing some parts or by
replacing parts with equivalents under compatible licenses.

-- 
 \        "For fast acting relief, try slowing down."  -- Jane Wagner, |
  `\                                                   via Lily Tomlin |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney