George Danchev writes: > Michael, > Thanks for you clarifications. In fact there is similar jurisdical norm > in my > country also I was not aware of till that moment. > > I believe that the reason to have that in Sofia-SIP's > libsofia-sip-ua/su/strtoull.c is that it comes that way from the original > contributors like University of California and Sun Microsystems. Whom legal > writer counsel do you suggest to talk to ? UCB & Sun's or the Sofia-SIP > upstream which code is licensed under LGPL ? I don't believe that that clause > makes it non-free as of DFSG, but if you think otherwise, please express your > points.
I agree that the "restricted rights" limitation is compatible with DFSG freedoms. The end of that paragraph also makes it clear that the government has the same license rights as anyone else. Unless someone else sees an issue, I think the clause as written is clearly free, and see no need to talk to the UC Regents or Sun to clarify the intention. > Another source of pain could be linking Sofia-SIP with OpenSSL (which > is > optional by nice to have it there) and as suggested by Mark [1] it is safe to > have so called OpenSSL_exception [2]. So the question is - is it fine to link > LGPL (not GPL'ed) code with OpenSSL licensed code ? Otherwise I believe we > can have that OpenSSL exception with no worries. The OpenSSL people claim there is no need, but the customary practice is for any LGPL'ed (or GPL'ed) work that links directly against OpenSSL to have the "OpenSSL exception" granted by its copyright holders. I am not sure what the requirement is for scenarios where the program also links against other LGPL'ed libraries, as in: gcc -o program $(OBJECT_FILES) -lssl -lsome_lgpl_lib Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
