elinks-0.12/configure.in does:
# Verify if the MD5 compatibility layer is usable.
CONFIG_GNUTLS_OPENSSL_COMPAT=yes
EL_CHECK_OPTIONAL_LIBRARY(CONFIG_GNUTLS_OPENSSL_COMPAT,
[GNU TLS OpenSSL compatibility],
gnutls/openssl.h, gnutls-openssl,
MD5_Init)
In GnuTLS 2.2.0 and 2.4.1, gnutls/openssl.h is licensed under GNU
GPL v3 or later:
* This file is part of GNUTLS-EXTRA.
*
* GNUTLS-EXTRA is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
* published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the
* License, or (at your option) any later version.
However, ELinks 0.10.0 and later are licensed under GNU GPL v2 only:
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it "
"and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public "
"License as published by the Free Software Foundation, "
"specifically version 2 of the License."),
This looks like a conflict. Avoiding license conflicts was the
whole reason for GnuTLS support in ELinks, so this should be fixed.
I think I should change configure.in of ELinks 0.11.4.GIT and
0.12.GIT to skip the test and always define
CONFIG_GNUTLS_OPENSSL_COMPAT=no, so that src/util/md5.c will be
compiled instead. I would leave the uses of that macro
unchanged, so that if someone is still using an older GnuTLS and
really needs to keep the size of the elinks executable down,
he/she can define the macro by hand. Alternatively, the
configure script could check the version number of GnuTLS, or
grep for "either version 2" in gnutls/openssl.h, but the simpler
solution is easier to test.
Personally, I would like a BSD-licensed ELinks. GPLv2 seems to
assume that one party (FSF) has all the copyrights and can thus
waive onerous requirements and regrant terminated licenses where
reasonable.
pgpuUGWT53ajZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ elinks-dev mailing list elinks-dev@linuxfromscratch.org http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-dev
