On 9/13/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Olaf van der Spek] > > > I thought that if the interface matches the user can link whatever > > > he wants, because he doesn't (re)distribute the results. > > [Steve Langasek] > > There isn't universal agreement on this point, and it's never > > actually been tested in court. > > There isn't? I thought this has been standard GPL lore for a very long > time - if you link to an *interface* which has a GPL-compliant > implementation, it does not matter if you also are incidentally runtime- > compatible with a non-GPL-compatible implementation. > > Some have argued back and forth about how useful or bug-free the > GPL-compliant implementation must be before it "counts", but that seems > not to be an issue here - both SSL backends are said to be functional, > if not 100% feature- and bug-equivalent. > > From a common-sense standpoint, it's pretty hard to argue that some > software is "derived" from openssl if any user could run the same > binary with only gnutls on his system.
The next question would then be: is it allowed to implement an interface without that requireing anything of your license?
