On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:25:36PM -0600, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > 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?
It does mean the export problem doesn't apply to you. AFAIK, anyway. IANAL, nor a Canadian. > > > 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? Nope, the GPL code requires *all* the libraries it uses, even transitively, to be GPL-compatible. What you might be able to get away with, depending on your circumstances, is having the SSL portion be optional: ie, you can install your program and libraries with or without SSL, and get good use out of them either way. > 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) Sounds fine to me. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
