On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 01:32:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > We're based in Canada - which I had hoped meant the export problem didn't > > apply to us. > > (It does)
Could you elaborate? > > We wanted our libraries to be LGPL and tools to be GPL but one of our most > > basic libraries links to OpenSSL. Is there any way to work problem forcing > > our libraries to be non-LGPL? > > I don't think there's any problem with the LGPL -- LGPLed stuff can be linked > to just about anything. It's the GPLed tools that'd be the problem. Ok, so because the only code that links to OpenSSL is our LGPL library there is no problem? The fact that our GPL'd code links to that LGPL library and thus transitively to the OpenSSL is irrelevant? This seems a little fishy. :-) That would mean if someone wrote an LGPL wrapper for OpenSSL, GPL programs could link to that wrapper? I don't mean to be sceptical; I know virtually nothing about copyright laws, I just want to be absolutely sure I'm not hampering the distribution of my software. I am perfectly happy, however, if this gets the code under the legal limbo bar. ;-) Although I'd rather leave it as straight GPL, you say adding a clause like: "This program is released under the GPL with the additional exemption that compiling, linking, and/or using OpenSSL is allowed." is sufficient? (http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2) Thanks a bundle, btw! -- Wesley W. Terpstra - Linux Developer
