Lars Rosengreen wrote:
To me the solution seems fairly simple: if a package has gpl (or lgpl) in its license field and has a builddep on fink's openssl, then it should no longer be included in the binary distribution, unless someone can establish that the upstream authors permit linking against openssl.
Only for GPL. There is absolutely no problem to distribute a LGPL-licensed package which is linked to OpenSSL.
The LGPL is more like the X11-licende (aka modified BSD-license), which
is also non-restrictive. <rant>If you read the FSF website, you will see a lot of push towards the GPL rather then the LGPL. That's pure politics. The GPL is actually very restrictive, and the FSF want it to be that way: they like that everything to use the GPL, in order to push free software, which can never be used in a commercial product. That other free licenses suffer from that is collateral damage to the FSF.</rant>
Regards, Freek
------------------------------------------------------- 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
