Hi! My understanding is that this is not entirely accurate. If OpenSSL is part of the operating system, then there is no problem:
https://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html https://www.openssl.org/docs/faq.html#LEGAL2 And no, I don't expect to change the license to spread OpenSSL instead of GnuTLS to W32. That beast ought to be contained, not spread ;-). Happy hacking! Christian On 11/04/2015 07:00 PM, Hein-Pieter van Braam wrote: > I think it may be helpful to add an exception to the LGPLv2.1+ license > of microhttpd if this becomes a standard part of microhttpd. While the > LGPL is compatible with the OpenSSL licenses the GPL is not. As per > section 3 of the LGPLv2.1+ it is allowed to change the license of a > LGPL package to the GPL. Without the exception for OpenSSL more care > needs to be taken by a user that does that, and they may inadvertently > create a non-distributeable program. > > It may also be that a GPL program linked against an LGPL library needs > to 'relicense' the LGPL library to the GPL 'automatically' At least > that is what this footnote seems to suggest: https://www.gnu.org/licens > es/gpl-faq.html#compat-matrix-footnote-7 If that interpretation is > correct than without the OpenSSL exception a GPL program can't link to > an microhttpd linked against OpenSSL at all because the to-GPL- > converted microhttpd won't have the OpenSSL exception in it, even if > the GPL program that links to microhttpd does. > > I hope this rambling makes some sense :P > > - Hein-Pieter van Braam
