-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave Vasilevsky wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: > >> Yes, I think we do. I'll try to construct a list of packages that may >> be affected. > > > Thanks Lars. > > I guess once we have this, for each package we'll need to: > > - Notify the upstream developers that they're sitting on a time bomb. :-) > > - Do one of the following, in order of preference: > * Get permission from the upstream devel to link with OpenSSL > * Link the package against OpenTLS > * Link the package against the system OpenSSL (BuildConflict with > Fink's version) > * Remove the package from the bindist, possibly from unstable too. > > Any other options? > Yes, ignoring this bullshit licensing issue all together. Four highly paid, very well known and rather well respected lawyers have told me, seperately, that we should exactly do that. Somehow I think that we should trust their judgement. I know I would, but then again, that is just me.
- -d -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCRsGPPMoaMn4kKR4RAhdWAKCe3b/zjKprJVQ4t4Ui+u4wTntSvgCeLke1 4dXOgb5xcTfUOy1Z8hzPsD4= =ryGd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------- 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
