On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
> No, ssh is NOT gpl. If it were, there could be no commercial versions.
>
OK. My bad. Sorry.
> In any case, I in particular would not trust source RPMs that didn't
> verify exactly the same as the stuff on the ssh master site; the latter is
> the ONLY site I would personally get ssh distros from.
>
Fair enough. There are people that I trust to build source rpms, and I
would trust source rpms that were pgp signed by them. If I do not know I
can trust the packager then I take the same attitude as you.
> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Mike wrote:
>
> > I thought it was released under GPL, in which case I thought that the only
> > requirement was that the source was available from the same place.
> > Also, there are source rpms in the same place, which is what I would
> > recommend using. There is no advantage in downloading the source and
> > compiling it yourself unless you at least look at the source (I do, most
> > people probably don't).
>
--
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A tautology is a thing which is tautological.
