> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Alexander Hansen <alexanderk.han...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Since the system’s OpenSSL is going away for 10.11 we’ve got a bit of a > pickle. > > My understanding is that our packages that use openssl100-dev and have > binaries are now technically in violation of the openssl license, which only > allows redistribution against an OpenSSL which is shipped with the OS. > > 1) Is this still true? If so, then we need to start tagging them as > Restrictive. > 2) Does LibreSSL have the same restriction? If not, can we convert over to > use that? > > -- > Alexander Hansen, Ph.D. > Fink User Liaison >
1) IANAL, so I can’t answer this, but the issue isn’t that OpenSSL’s license forbids distribution. The problem is that because of OpenSSL’s “original” BSD license with the advertising clause, it is incompatible with the GPL. The GPL *does* allow linking to libraries that come with an OS, so that’s where the workaround used to be. 2) LibreSSL (and BoringSSL but we don’t have that package) is a fork of OpenSSL and therefore must use the same license. I believe they have been trying to get things relicensed but that’s an almost impossible job since there’s some really old code in there. Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
