On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:41:49 +0100 Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OTOH, openldap has a non-GPL but GPL-compatible, non-viral license, > which has no reason to be considered restrictive when combined with > openssl. But then this whole pissing contest between rival opensource > factions has always looked rather ridiculous to me. OK so what you mean is that if I link to the system-openssl and let the openldap package do his thing with openssl097 I could still keep the GPL label. 'interesting' discussion, I'm not big on license so it's great to see a practical question brought so much in its trail. I think I will just Restrict the license and forget about the nitty gritty details for now, I have enough work on the claws branch to leave the religious side alone ;-) ... ultimately I don't think it matters since the sylphhed I would consider safe to include as binary in Fink distribution (if it is considered at some point obviously) would be the sll disabled version. That's purely because of what I use as source code for the respective versions. @+ et bonne soiree! Rogue ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
