Bjørn Mork wrote: > Alan DeKok posted this very promising report of the re-licensing work he > had been doing in January: > http://lists.cistron.nl/pipermail/freeradius-devel/2009-January/012726.html
I've contacted a number of people. No one has objected. > If I understand Alan's post correctly, the license issue was > unintentional in the first place. If that is correct, then it is too > bad that it keeps a number of users from using the code (yes, there is > nothing preventing them from building FreeRADIUS themselves, but most > users won't do that) An alternative would be to distribute freeradius + openssl binaries from freeradius.org. Or, to re-arrange the code so that any OpenSSL dependence is re-arranged to avoid the license issue. Alan DeKok - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html