Re: High-priority library replacements?

[Justin Cormack <justin@specialbusservice.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1161 bytes --]

On 25 Apr 2013 17:52, "Zvi Gilboa" <zg7s@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
>
> On 04/25/2013 08:51 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 07:44:39AM -0400, LM wrote:
>>>
>>> incompatible licenses.  The openssl library can't be used with a GNU
>>> program unless there's a waiver for it because one of the clauses in the
>>> openssl license goes against the GNU license principles.  The gnutls
>>
>> Not _used_ but _distributed_. The GPL does not restrict use
>> whatsoever (and takes the position that it legally can't do so) so
>> it's fine to use OpenSSL with GPL programs as long as you don't
>> distribute the resulting binary. This is of course a problem for
>> package maintainers/distributions, and distributing both openssl and
>> the GNU program and a script to link them together might even be seen
>> as an infringing activity.
>
>
> What about explicitly loading the library at run-time using uselib(2) in
a plug-in like fashion?  Is that also considered problematic from a GNU
perspective?

There is some disagreement about this and it depends what you distribute.
See here http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/548216/731f7ad0abe52f40/

Justin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1594 bytes --]