Also it is curious that under the section on the OpenSSL license, this web page claims there is no reason not to build against it.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Jack Howarth <howarth.at.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > Aren't these restrictions specific to binary distribution system? If so, > couldn't these be blacklisted from the bindist and require the user to > build them locally under fink? > > On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Alexander Hansen <alexanderk.han...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alexanderk.han...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> >> > On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson <daniel.johnso...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> 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 >> > >> >> 1+2) Ah. gotcha. As a simple base example then, is our cvs package, >> which uses openssl100, in violation? And if so, do we have to mark it as >> Restrictive? Or worse yet, pull it and stop supporting selfupdate-cvs on >> distributions where Xcode doesn’t have cvs ? >> >> -- >> Alexander Hansen, Ph.D. >> Fink User Liaison >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
