Gunnar Wolf wrote: > This is completely expectable, as Cherokee now depends on OpenSSL for > criptography. Now, in human-speak, what is the problem with this? > Basically, that the OpenSSL and the GPL licenses are not mutually > compatible [1] (basically, the OpenSSL license includes an advertising > clause, similar to the four-clause BSD license), and GPLed projects > using OpenSSL must add an exception to their licensing terms.
So a lot of @#$&( was pasted about not being compatible, why is not pasted *what* is not compatible? > Just... As an extra word: I know many people view Debian as the > licensing zealots. In some sense, we are... But anyway, this is > something not only said by us. The link I sent comes from a Gnome > developer; I found other links detailing this situation at Wikipedia > [2], wget [3], and even OpenSSL itself [4]. If it was my own software I would totally not care if it was not in Debian anymore, and only available for persons that wanted my software. So eventually because of the non-sense involved would switch from Debian anyway ;) > This is a minor change, but please treat it with high priority - It > basically means Cherokee, as it is now, is not legally distributable > when compiled with SSL support. So the above statement applies already :) Maybe a read PR thing would be: to put on /. Cherokee doesn't care about Debian's copyright policy, and switches to the fastest open source implementation of SSL. And put some nice benchmarks of the latest release with it. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
