Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If both M and P were GPL with OpenSSL exception, but L were GPL > without OpenSSL exception, this linking would be a violation of L's > license?`By virtue of P linking to M and L and M linking to OpenSSL?
That's my understanding, yes. This is why things like "OpenSSL exclusion clause" are a stop-gap measure only; the license incompatibility continues to be a problem for any new code combined with the work, and it's easy to overlook that. In my view, the ideal solution from a reduce-licensing-headaches perspective is to get all the code in a work licensed compatibly with no need for exception clauses, either by relicensing some parts or by replacing parts with equivalents under compatible licenses. -- \ "For fast acting relief, try slowing down." -- Jane Wagner, | `\ via Lily Tomlin | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
