> On Jun 20, 2015, at 16:03, Daniel Johnson <daniel.johnso...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>
<snip> >> 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 >> > > This is a good run-down: > https://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html > > Some packages have an explicit “OpenSSL is Ok” clause added to the GPL. cvs > does not, but looking at the code, it looks like libcrypto is only used as a > requirement for Kerberos and Apple’s Kerberos doesn’t need that. I’ll have to > look at it closer. It may be possible to drop the dep. > > Daniel > OK, Wget mentioned an explicit exemption for OpenSSL, too, which is why I went ahead and updated it for openssl100 back when I did that. I know we got a bit sloppy in the 10.6-10.7 era when we didn’t have a regularly updated bindist. -- 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
