On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 10:36 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > I can see where this might not be enough to allow adding the license > exception without an explicit statement from upstream, but at least to > my eye, it does seem to contradict the notion that "upstream did not > link against [OpenSSL]". Maybe upstream never linked the code at all or used a mock implementation that only provides the openssl interface without functionality ;) The real issue is, who linked the binary that gets distributed, and therefore, who has to comply with the GPL, and this is not the upstream author. To rephrase Dominik's comment: "Upstream did not link openssl against the binary that will get distributed, the package maintainer does that." my 0.02? regards, Gert
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part