On 5/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, it looks like several other projects use an exception clause in > > their distribution (such as wget): see > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openssl#The_exception > > > > We absolutely CANNOT. Changing our license would require permission from > everybody who has contributed to SAGE, and possibly from everything else we > touch. That would require a monumental amount of effort for a very small > benefit. > > Immediately, we should take down the relevant versions of SAGE.
I'm not going to take any panicked actions like that. No copyright holders have complained and I'm making a good faith issue to remedy the problem now that I'm aware of it. sage-2.5.4, which I will release soon, will not contain openssl. > In the short term, we should make the package optional & make its > installation interactive. Building Python with openssl not already built yields a Python that doesn't work. It's quite painful to just build openssl as an optional package; you have to also rebuild python itself. I think it's better to find a replacement for openssl that can be included in SAGE. That program, yassl, that you found http://www.yassl.com/ has actually been under fairly active development recently. Maybe it would be useful for us? Yassl is a lightweight GPL'd implementation of the SSL spec. If it's YASSL versus GNU TLS, it's not at all clear that GNU TLS is a better choice based on usage and maturity. When it was openssl versus xxxx, then the choice was clear based on those factors. > In the not-very-distant future (SD4?), we should switch [...] Yep! william --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
