On 8/30/05, Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/30/05, Pascal Giard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'd be inclined to accept this and go with the upstream author's will; > > enable SSL and add information in the copyright file. > > He's not the only upstream author of the code, so his statement is not > sufficient.
Hmm... i wasn't seeing it that way... I thought the issue was to determine weither or not having code dynamicly linked against libraries means "including code from those libraries". If so, clauses 3 and 6 of the OpenSSL license would come into play and clash with the GPL as mentionned there: http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html > The package also includes some of Google's artwork (gmail.png). > Google's usage guidelines[1] forbid any and all modifications to their > logos ("About Our Logos - One of the conditions for all uses is that > you can't mess around with our logo. Only we get to do that.") and any > use of their "Brand Features" requires an explicit permission > statement from them. It looks like we mightn't have permission to > distribute this file even from non-free, let alone a suitably > permissive license to allow it to stay in main. Fortunately, it's just > an image of the letter "G" so it shouldn't be too hard to whip up a > replacement. > > [1] http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html Good point! I'll create another G and replace it. thanks, -Pascal -- Homepage (http://organact.mine.nu) Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)
