On 6 October 2014 15:32:28 BST, Max Kellermann <[email protected]> wrote: >On 2014/10/06 15:20, Ben Boeckel <[email protected]> wrote: >> Bleh. Only Debian really does this though, right? I think Red Hat and >> Fedora both say that OpenSSL is part of the system and that's that >> (similar to how the Microsoft C Runtime is "compatible"). Not sure >what >> other "major" binary distros say. > >That is a strawman argument. That way, you can declare all libraries >"system libraries", and suddenly you can link GPL binaries with any >amount of non-free code.
Hm, though aren't you the copyright holder? You could (if you really wanted to) add an exception for OpenSSL in the licence. Just a thought. Chris >Why would a pure userspace library that is not even part of any >language standard be a "system library"? It's just some user-space >utility library, like any other. GnuTLS is not "system" either, nor >is NSS. None of these provide access to the operating system. > >> SSH + socat I guess ;) . Less "modern" I suppose, but probably more >> secure than trusting arbitrary CA entities (with DNSSEC and SSHFP >> entries in DNS at least). > >SSH port forwarding is being used by many people already to access MPD >securely. > >Max >_______________________________________________ >mpd-devel mailing list >[email protected] >http://mailman.blarg.de/listinfo/mpd-devel -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ mpd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.blarg.de/listinfo/mpd-devel
