Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Using the MacPorts version of OpenSSL has a licensing problem with
GPL ports, though... When distributing package binaries, that is.
Oh. Good. Grief.
So when we get going on binaries, we're going to have to provide
portfile syntax to indicate whether we may distribute binaries of
the built thing?
Sheesh.
It might even need two flags, one for the distfiles and one for the
binaries...
Then again, the default should probably be "yes we can" and the
others override.
[...]
It says "the GPL does not place restrictions on using libraries
that are part of the normal operating system distribution". OpenSSL
is part of the normal Mac OS X distribution. It says "Some GPL
software copyright holders claim that you infringe on their rights
if you use OpenSSL with their software on operating systems that
don't normally include OpenSSL." Mac OS X does normally include
OpenSSL, so I don't see any problem here. But, I'm not a lawyer.
The situation might be different for people who use MacPorts on
other operating systems that don't come with OpenSSL. Not sure what
that OS would be. But I have no plans to provide binaries for
anything other than Mac OS X.
I do think that part applies when you actually link with the system
version...
The annoying part is when the system openssl lack new features, such
as SHA256.
--anders
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
