Steve Langasek, on 2003-04-14, 09:38, you wrote: > There's also no wiggle room for "indirect linking" arguments, because > Debian is distributed as a cohesive whole: if we distribute GPL app foo > linked against LGPL library bar, and Debian's copy of libbar is linked > against OpenSSL, you cannot argue that it was not our intent to > distribute a copy of foo that depends on OpenSSL -- if it was, we should > have provided a copy of libbar that was *not* linked against OpenSSL.
I could imagine something similar, though. One could build a library that provides the same API as OpenSSL but does not link against it. Instead it would search the system for installed libraries, dlopen()s them and uses them as kind of a plugin. Correctly implemented this library could provide support for openssl, gnutls and maybe even the old ssleay (not really useful though) as 'backend'. Even more so, there could be a default 'null' plugin that wouldn't provide any service but let called SSL routines simply fail when no usable SSL library is installed. Joerg -- Joerg "joergland" Wendland GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417
pgpkhlUDDEECI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
