Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So if indeed netatalk contains executable code from openssl, then according > to #2, the redistributed binary must have the openssl-licence, and that is > not allowed. However, just thinking about how dynamic libraries work, I > belief there is no executable code of the library being called involved, > even though the header files are used (since they only contain definitions, > but don't lead to executable code). > > Could someone confirm or deny this?
The FSF disagree - their claim is that even with dynamic linking the libraries must be GPL compatible. Nobody has so far been willing to have a lawsuit over this, so it's not possible to confirm or deny this. Believing the FSF is safer than not doing so, so we take the low-risk approach. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]