On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:47, Andrew Lau wrote: > Hi everyone, > I was wondering whether it would be legal for me compile and > link Balsa (GPL) to the libesmtp5 (LGPL) [1] and libldap2 (OpenLDAP PL > [2]) libs. Doing so results in a binary that is indirectly linked to > OpenSSL for which Balsa does not have a exclusion clause for at this > current time. I don't know whether this indirect linking will produce > a contaminated package that is unacceptable for main. > > Yours sincerely, > Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau > > [1] http://www.stafford.uklinux.net/libesmtp/ > [2] http://www.openldap.org/software/release/license.html
The consensus (or at least 'general principle') here seems to be: Indirect linking is still linking, and the GPL prohibits linking with code and distributing the binaries if the other code can't also be distributed under the terms of the GPL. (per Steve Langasek[1]) Matt 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00253.html
