> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jun 18 17:23:58 2002 > Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:23:43 -0700 > From: Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Patrick Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: LPRng: OpenSSL, GNUTLS, and Licenses > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 07:27:22AM -0700, Patrick Powell wrote: > > Of course, there is an even simpler way: -) > > > > configure --disable-ssl > > > > I have been there on this one. > > What about adding a clause? That way Craig could package an ssl-enabled > version of lprng. Are there too many contributors? > > Luca > > -- > Luca Filipozzi, ECE Dept. IT Manager, University of British Columbia > Office: MacLeod 257 Voice: 604.822.3976 Web: www.ece.ubc.ca/~lucaf > gpgkey 5A827A2D - A149 97BD 188C 7F29 779E 09C1 3573 32C4 5A82 7A2D >
I see the problem. It does not effect those folks who want to distribute SOURCE code, it hits those who want to distribute BINARY code. But I am puzzled. If I check at compile time to see if a facility is present and use it if only it is present AND SELECTED TO BE USED IF IT IS PRESENT, I do not believe that I need to be constrained by the copyright/distribution licenses of that facility. If this was not the case, then the configure facility would not be able to be distributed and/or used. A problem arises when somebody wants to distribute BINARY distributions. This requires linking against a library that may have additional restrictions. Under these circumstances, it appears to me to be the responsibility of the binary distribution maker to ensure that their binaries and the associated libraries are distributed under the terms and conditions of the licensing agreements. Could you please clarify the problem for me? I found the discussion in the email http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00072.html less than comprehendible. The discussions and email's repeatedly talk about 'linking', but as far as I can tell they really mean 'distibuting linked versions of executable binaries', which is why I do put the tests in configure for exactly this reason - to make life easier for binary distributions. You can now take the option of compiling it without the SSL support and NOT have the problem. Am I missing something here? I first ran into this with the Kerberos support and the problems of export licenses. By the way, how is this dealt with by other software packages/ distributions that use OpenSSL? Patrick Powell ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- YOU MUST BE A LIST MEMBER IN ORDER TO POST TO THE LPRNG MAILING LIST The address you post from MUST be your subscription address If you need help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or lprng-requests or lprng-digest-requests) with the word 'help' in the body. For the impatient, to subscribe to a list with name LIST, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with: | example: subscribe LIST <mailaddr> | subscribe lprng-digest [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe LIST <mailaddr> | unsubscribe lprng [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you have major problems, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word LPRNGLIST in the SUBJECT line. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
