Re: [libesmtp-devel] Licence issues for libESMTP (and Balsa) - long (was Re: NTLM authentication)

[Matthias Andree <ma+balsa dt e-technik uni-dortmund de>]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Carlos Morgado wrote:

> From what i remember of the LGPL linking libesmtp with openssl wouldn't
> be a problem. The LGPL separates linking from actual code as oposed to the
> GPL that focus on the final runtime image. So, a libESMTP linked against
> OpenSSL image is not considered a derivate work of libESMTP.
> Linking libesmtp+openssl with a gpl program *might* be a problem though.
> (the original one)

Which would then originate from the OpenSSL's license advertising
clause.

> As i said, I don't think openbsd taints a lgpl binary

OpenSSL has an advertising clause which may later become a problem.
Effectively, you'd probably not be able to link GPLed stuff against
OpenSSL.

> Imho this dlopen scenario is even muddier than the single license
> scenario as the license governing the final product will not only
> depend on the license of all the configured modules but also of
> something that is decided on run time.

May I refer you to discussions on the Linux-Kernel mailing list
when it comes to binary-only modules, some insight may be drawn from
there.