Graeme -
Personally I would rate libamr as the more urgent issue as its a true
unknown, openssl is just a mess that has been around for your and no-
one
has gone suing over it.
Fully agree with you. From the two libamr looks interesting. Remember
we have to focus our time on REAL PROGRESS, that is also true for
licensing work.
I love to spend time on this issue, but let's spend it in areas where
we are really making progress.
Let's see what we can find out about libamr...
src/3rdparty is where Trolltech for insane reasons known only to
themselves had imported libraries from community they use. They link
against these versions rather than the ones from any other source and
there doesnt appear to be configure options to stop this.
True but again, which specific library are you talking about? The fact
that there is no configure option doesn't mean we are forcing
anything. The whole build system is FOSS as well. In fact we spend a
lot of time to get it integrated into OE well. I love more choice, so
if someone adds an easy way to swap out OpenSSL for GnuTLS then great.
But I don't see how you can argue that if Openmoko does not do this
themselves, we are forcing anyone to do anything wrt copyright law.
This whole issue irritates me as GPLv3 specifically allows linking
with
OpenSSL so it obviously was not in FSF intentions to prohibit this in
GPLv2, just an oversite. But you know how rabid the community gets
about
licensing.
Yes, but I guess you see it yourself now. If even the FSF adds a
special OpenSSL clause in GPLv3, I don't think there is a need for us
to be stricter than the FSF!
Unfortunately rabies is pretty much 100% fatal.
Wolfgang
On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:35 PM, Graeme Gregory wrote:
Wolfgang Spraul wrote:
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.
src/3rdparty is where Trolltech for insane reasons known only to
themselves had imported libraries from community they use. They link
against these versions rather than the ones from any other source and
there doesnt appear to be configure options to stop this.
I believe if qtopia links against openssl and these libraries then
it is
possibly in violation of the license of these libraries. Some may not
wish to be linked with openssl.
This whole issue irritates me as GPLv3 specifically allows linking
with
OpenSSL so it obviously was not in FSF intentions to prohibit this in
GPLv2, just an oversite. But you know how rabid the community gets
about
licensing.
Its not a problem for us to have openssl on rootfs, look at debian.
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?
According to Holger it is used for the memo recorder. I guess it can
probably be hacked out of the source until some licensing guru
investigates libamr fully.
Personally I would rate libamr as the more urgent issue as its a true
unknown, openssl is just a mess that has been around for your and no-
one
has gone suing over it.
Graeme
