Re: Bacula and OpenSSL (original) (raw)

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Steve Langasek wrote:

I agree that the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the OpenSSL license, in the sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no more easily understood) system exception clause, which seems to allow distributing GPLv3 binaries that are /dynamically linked/ against OpenSSL. Is this not the position of FSF/FSF Europe?

I am discussing this in detail with Brett Smith of FSF.

Kern Sibbald wrote:

OK, I think the possible solutions are pretty clear to me. Thank you for the rapid response.

No problem.

Kern, if it would be useful to you I can arrange a physical meeting or telephone call to discuss these things in more detail. After all, we are only a few kilometres from each other in Switzerland and we might be able to explore options more quickly that way.

Regards

Shane

Shane Coughlan FTF Coordinator Free Software Foundation Europe Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406 coughlan@fsfeurope.org Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBRpkLutGa7CzA5hXyAQKT5AQAnm8Rf+mzyNtRf29/zhrT/PNQ5agRlJyn zN7LGecsMiFlCfEPI/0OAeu4Y4rE56QnFiJJQjEp4gUw7ybKeNFzCguLegBIUyoi HME3kurobaAgBKA1Bt6dZClE4N1bQ3u9sVmhH9QjWL+HU4ldoLtI6OduqBDNUyin H3OOojb1/Jw= =qI0F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply to: