?Two Certificate Managers? (Re: regarding KPF)

[Waldo Bastian]

On Monday 22 April 2002 01:00 pm, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Monday 22 April 2002 19:33, George Staikos wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >     I wrote the KDE SSL code, and I don't care about the state of the
> > OpenSSL licence.  I don't have issues with the clause that says I must
> > explicitly give credit to the original author of OpenSSL, which to my
> > knowledge, is the only offending clause.
>
> <snip>
>
> IANAL and I don't want to heat this discussion up again, yet I want to
> report that I was told by people (GNUs) on CeBIT that dynloading OpenSSL
> might be considered linking and thus might make us violate the GPL, since
> OpenSSL isn't GPL compatible. I'd like to hear what other people think
> about this, though, since I can't really say anything about that.

Konqueror and the kparts that it loads are seperate and independent works, so 
the license of konqueror is unrelated to the license of any of the kparts. Of 
course a KPart must comply with the license restrictions imposed on it by the 
libs that it uses, but those are usually mostly LGPL for kdelibs (khtml, kio, 
kparts, kssl) and GPL/QPL for Qt.

io-slaves are, just like kparts, also independant works. (and kio_http is 
LGPL)

Cheers,
Waldo