On Tuesday 24 July 2007 10:09, Shane M. Coughlan wrote: > RE: The FSF position regarding OpenSSL as a system library in Debian. > > > === > > > > We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian. > > The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including > > only code that accompanies genuinely fundamental components of the > > system. I don't see anything to suggest that that's the case for > > OpenSSL in Debian: the package only has important priority (as opposed > > to glibc's required), there are only about 350 packages depending on it > > (as opposed to glibc's 8500), and it isn't installed on a base system. > > To put it plainly, if OpenSSL actually were a System Library, I would > > expect it to look more like one. > > > > -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation > > > > === > > Steve, Kern and Anthony all made comments regarding the statement above. > I just wanted to let you know that I've forwarded these comments to > Brett Smith. :)
OK, thanks. Concerning Brett's most recent answer: I have to agree that OpenSSL is not a System Library in the very strict sense of the word. Regards, Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
