Re: Balsa OpenSSL problems worse than I expected.

[Andrew Lau <netsnipe debianplanet org>]

Hi Brian,

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 11:38:30AM +0000, Brian Stafford wrote:
> Apart from occasional code contributions to balsa, I have nothing to
> do with this project.  I am not prepared to issue legal statements
> to each and every party that wants to link with my code on the
> offchance that it has been built by a third party who has, beyond my
> control, enabled support for openssl.

	I only just realised that you were the upstream author for
libesmtp. Anyway, I'd just to make it clear that neither myself or
Debian have any issues regarding the licensing of libesmtp. There's
been a misunderstanding here, so my apologies for not making myself
clear in the first place. There is nothing that requires your action
concerning libesmtp.
	It's a commonly held view in debian-legal that the LGPL easily
co-exists with the OpenSSL license advertising clause. The question
that I'm asking debian-legal now is whether a Balsa binary (under the
GPL without exclusions) that links directly to libesmtp, would be
violating the OpenSSL license due to the resultant indirect link to
libssl0.9.6. If so, I will be approaching Jeremy Bouse <jbouse at
debian.org> (and not you) to work out a short-term solution.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau              Computer Science & Student Rep, UNSW *
*   # apt-get into it                 Debian GNU/Linux Package Maintainer *
*     <netsnipe(+)debianplanet.org\0>      <alau(+)cse.unsw.edu.au\0>     *
* GnuPG 1024D/2E8B68BD 0B77 73D0 4F3B F286 63F1  9F4A 9B24 C07D 2E8B 68BD *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PGP signature