-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David R. Morrison wrote:
| Lars,
|
| Thanks for raising this issue. It has come up before, but it has perhaps
| not received the attention it deserves.
|
| My reading of the links you provided suggests that you are correct: we may
| not link GPL'd
David R. Morrison wrote:
My reading of the links you provided suggests that you are correct: we may
not link GPL'd software against fink's openssl package unless the license
explictly permits linking to openssl. (In many cases, there is an
alternative -- link to the system's openssl --
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:44PM +0100, David H. wrote:
Personally i am _very_ unhappy with this nervousness about
Licensing. the GPL is not meant to inhibit what we are doing, nor is
it meant to make our work more complicated. [...] I will run this by our
lawyers tomorrow,
Would it also
On Mar 14, 2005, at 1:02 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
Lars,
Thanks for raising this issue. It has come up before, but it has
perhaps
not received the attention it deserves.
My reading of the links you provided suggests that you are correct: we
may
not link GPL'd software against fink's openssl
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:15:21PM -0500, Benjamin Reed wrote:
To me, it would seem kind of arbitrary for openssl 0.9.6 to be allowed,
but 0.9.7 to not be just because we're building our own copy of it.
When Apple releases some future OS release with 0.9.7 on it, is it
magically OK suddenly?
Lars Rosengreen wrote:
On Mar 14, 2005, at 1:02 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
Do we do this in stable/crypto at all? Did you happen to jot down the
names of the offending packages in unstable/crypto?
It would be a long list! Some examples that I found are xchat-ssl,
wget-ssl, valknut-ssl,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 14, 2005, at 5:09 PM, David Brown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:15:21PM -0500, Benjamin Reed wrote:
To me, it would seem kind of arbitrary for openssl 0.9.6 to be
allowed,
but 0.9.7 to not be just because we're building our own copy of it.
