Graeme -
we need to look into this a bit more serious :-)
Rather than pointing fingers at those two libraries, I suggest we
think about how to improve the situation.
openssl is one of the most respected Free Software projects, I know
Ralf Engelschall personally from many years back in Munich...
The licensing issues around openssl are legend, I don't need to get
into the details here.
Please explain exactly why you think we are "forcing the stuff in src/
3rdparty to link against openssl"?
What is in src/3rdparty? Why are we forcing anyone to link against
openssl?
Are you saying we cannot ship a rootfs that only has an openssl binary
because someone who doesn't like the openssl license would have to
compile GnuTLS by themselves? That would take the licensing debates to
the next level! I'm sure that's not what you mean, so please give me
some more background information.
Yes this is one solution, I wonder if Holger can estimate the time it
would require.
What is your estimate on how long it would take you?
What do we currently need libamr for? Can we just disable use of the
library right now? Where and how is the speech codec used?
Best Regards,
Wolfgang
On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Graeme Gregory wrote:
Wolfgang Spraul wrote:
Graeme -
please provide exact information for the libamr license. If it is
'unknown', it may be 'in the public domain'.
All the information I can find points to it being an example
implementation as part of a
3gpp specification. Normally 3gpp don't allow non members to use their
specifications
so I am doubting it is in Public Domain.
But I also can't find useful information on what its license
actually is.
For openssl, we should add GnuTLS support.
Honestly I think both cases do not sound very dramatic to me.
But it's great you keep a watchful eye and help us do the due
diligence :-)
Yes this is one solution, I wonder if Holger can estimate the time it
would require.
Graeme
