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 package unless the license
explictly permits linking to openssl. (In many cases, there is an
alternative -- link to the system's openssl -- although this is not great
because it doesn't get updated as frequently.)
I think we are ok, as long as we aren't distributing any binaries. For packages in unstable, the only thing we are distributing is a recipe for creating a package which the user has to build from source themselves. We are not actually distributing modified source or binaries. The bindist may be another matter.
Do we do this in stable/crypto at all? Did you happen to jot down the names of the offending packages in unstable/crypto?
Yes, I think we do. I'll try to construct a list of packages that may be affected.
-Lars
-- Lars Rosengreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.margay.org/~lars
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
