The nss library is under MPL/GPL dual-license. This is the only way it can be GPL compatible, as the MPL is not compatible.
Yes, you are right. Fixed!
Technically, for GnuTLS + proprietary or otherwise GPL-incompatible code, there is no problem (the GPL does not come into effect) if the program is not distributed. For example, this covers in-house tools, tinkering, etc. See the GPL FAQ.
I would change that entry to "Yes, but only if the program is not distributed."
How about that: "Yes, but if the application is distributed then the source code must be also released under GPL." ?
I would also change the heading "Using with proprietary applications/libraries" to "Using with proprietary or otherwise GPL-incompatible applications/libraries". Certainly a license can be nonproprietary but still not GPL-compatible (MPL, Artistic, etc.).
I don't think I want to go that way :) There are too many different licenses and covering all possible
combinations is impossible (for example, I would imagine that there is a GPL incompatible license
that prevents *any* linking with GPL :) ). I feel that it is important to cover the 3 major (IMHO) cases:
proprietary code, MIT/BSD and GPL (I've added MIT/BSD column with all "Yes"). I am afraid that
even this information (especially in the part that talks about GPL) might be incorrect. I am not a lawyer
and I suspect that I just can't read the licenses text because it's written in not very well known to me
"lawyer's English" :)
Aleksey
_______________________________________________ xmlsec mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
