Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-linked packages: need new license type?

[David R. Morrison]

On Jun 14, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote: On Jun 14, 2005, at 4:51 AM, Daniel Macks wrote: OTOH, we could generalize the solution away from "fink's openssl linkage policy" and just add a new Restrictive/Source-Distributable license type. I have no doubt that some of the other Restrictive packages may allow souce redistribution but (for example) not binary redistribution, or some other wacky licensing terms that would fit here also. I prefer this option. I agree that this makes a lot of sense.  Maybe it would be a bit more clear to call it "Binaries restricted". If we agree on this new policy, an item should be added to the documentation about it.  Then, somebody could go through and find the instances of openssl-using packages and change the licenses on them. (By the way, at the time we implemented the policy about openssl linking, I went through all of our *stable* packages and fixed their licenses to comply with the new policy, but as far as I know this has not been done for unstable packages which don't also exist in the stable tree.)   -- Dave