On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:32:35PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: > psi uses a library, libqssl1 which is lgpl. However, since it links > against openssl directly the license of libqssl1 should be a modified > lgpl which would make it incompatible with gpl(?) So psi can not link
You could try to get the same exception added to PSI. The licensing exception doesn't make it GPL-incompatible as long as the exception is removable; the problem is that all libraries libqssl1 is linked against (eg. QT, indirectly) need to allow this link. I don't know if QT can be linked against OpenSSL. Dual licensed under the GPL and QPL, the GPL doesn't allow it, but I don't know anything about the QPL. If it can't, I'd expect the only option would be to port libqssl1 to some other SSL implementation. If it can, I also don't know if the QPL is DFSG-free; I'm not sure about "governed by the Laws of Norway. Disputes shall be settled by Oslo City Court." and 6c: "If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one." Normally, this doesn't matter, since it's dual-licensed with the GPL, but it might mean that cross-linking QT to OpenSSL is only permitted by a DFSG-unfree license; I don't know if that matters at all to Debian. > to libqssl1. As far as I can tell that also makes libqssl1's reason for > existence questionable since it doesn't actually work around the openssl > license issue. It's inconvenient, but I don't think it has anything to do with its reason for existence. -- Glenn Maynard
