On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 09:17:44AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 09:53:34AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > > > Nice, so we should check that any linked GPL library directly > > > > (obviuolsy) or > > > > indirectly (with N=1,2,3... levels of indirection) linked against > > > > openssl adds the exception. > > > > No, we should simply not be linking libmysqlclient against OpenSSL. The > > > exemption was needed because there exists software that uses both > > > libmysqlclient and libssl, but making libmysqlclient itself use libssl > > > just > > > because we now have the exemption will cause licensing problems for > > > applications which currently do *not* depend on libssl. > > > That's clear, I meant simply that if program A links libB which links libC > > which links libssl, than both A, libB and libC should add the exception, > > isn't it? That's independently from having A using libssl functions > > directly or not. > > That's true; I'm merely pointing out the importance of not turning > libmysqlclient into libC here. >
So what if we had two editions of libmysqlclient, one of them ssl-enabled and the other - as currently - not? That would allow using ssl whenever possible. I think that could be done, without breaking things. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
