Hi, thanks for the reply. I spent some time scratching my head over this and delving into the weird world of incompatible free software licenses. It seems strange that we have here a piece of free software, which relies on another piece of free software; we can distribute both of them, but we can't distribute them connected, so we can only distribute something that is effectively crippled. From the end-user perspective it seems like this should be solvable - we can find a way to distribute many other things which are much more incompatible with free software as a whole :) I also thought that multiverse was where things go which have license incompatibilities anyway.
But, from a strict standpoint, it does make sense. If I understand it correctly, the apache license has stricter requirements regarding patents than GPL v2, but is more compatible with GPL V3 ... or something? Out of curiousity I started reading all the licenses for all the other packages I have installed. Is the exception you mention just as simple as what's in the license for CUPS, for example? Such as " xxx. OpenSSL Toolkit License Exception; a. Research Systems Unix Group at the University of Michigan explicitly allows the compilation and distribution of the CUPS software with Netatalk" Is there a petition we can sign, or can I just call them up and ask, maybe? Here's my argument for why this is important: It's important that linux (in our case, ubuntu) be able to interoperate on a network with other OS's. If you use a Mac, AFP is the sanest option. Apple doesn't have all that much market share, but it does have a lot at least in schools and universities in the US and in creative and design businesses. These are places where Ubuntu could be a great addition, and being able to share files between osx and linux is a critical part of making that work. I say that from spending the last 7 years running a linux lab in a 100% Mac art school. Having netatalk and avahi working well is really, really, important. :) Quoting Michael Bienia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > No, as netatalk linked with openssl wouldn't be redistributable, which > is a main requirement for inclusion in multiverse. > > One option is to convince netatalk upstream to add a openssl > exception to the license. > An other option is to try if netatalk builds and works with gnutls. > > -- > netatalk not built with encrypted auth support > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/26452 > You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber > of the bug. > -- netatalk not built with encrypted auth support https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/26452 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs