Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
I've begun the implementation of the new license policy by re-licensing all of the packages that Lars listed in the stable/crypto category, re-licensing them in all four active trees. (I made them all Restrictive, but put a note in DescPackaging to indicate the original license.) I'll work on the others later. As package maintainers make progress on the other approaches, they can revise their packages. I'll also put a statement about the new policy in the fink documentation. -- Dave Lars Rosengreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? 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. We could change the license field of such packages to restrictive, or better yet, create a new license category for cases like this where fink may distribute source code but not binaries. --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David R. Morrison wrote: I've begun the implementation of the new license policy by re-licensing all of the packages that Lars listed in the stable/crypto category, re-licensing them in all four active trees. (I made them all Restrictive, but put a note in DescPackaging to indicate the original license.) I'll work on the others later. As package maintainers make progress on the other approaches, they can revise their packages. I'll also put a statement about the new policy in the fink documentation. Could we please put Variants on the License: filed then ? I am _not_ going to maintain msmtp-ssl and msmtp-sasl because of this license change as seperate files. Thank you - -d -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCUiKmPMoaMn4kKR4RAu7zAKCgQ3vV9D7pbC3RGQP1iKevOWXVDACeLSmN E3mfU6rFN5qVhmOXvYgsx40= =4frQ -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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 26, 2005, at 5:10 PM, 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. Here is a preliminary list. I have only had a chance to verify a few of these, so there are bound to be several false positives in here. unstable/main net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett unstable/crypto - amule.info GPL ASARI Takashi aqbanking.info GPL Peter O'Gorman aqhbci-qt-tools.infoGPL Peter O'Gorman aqhbci.info GPL Peter O'Gorman bazaar-ssl.info GPL/GFDLLars Rosengreen ccvssh.info GPL David Bacher cfengine.info GPL Matthew Flanagan clamav.info GPL Remi Mommsen dods.info GPL Jeffrey Whitaker ejabberd.info GPL Daniel Henninger ekg-ssl.infoGPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed elinks-ssl.info GPL Daniel Macks ethereal-ssl.info GPL Max Horn fetchmail-ssl.info GPL Eric Knauel fwbuilder.info GPL Vadim Zaliva gftp-ssl.info GPL Justin F. Hallett gnome-vfs-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone gnome-vfs2-ssl.info GPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team gnomemeeting.info GPL/LGPLShawn Hsiao gwenhywfar.info LGPLPeter O'Gorman htmldoc-1.8.23-13.info GPL Thomas Kotzian htmldoc-nox-1.8.23-3.info GPL Thomas Kotzian irssi-ssl.info GPL Max Horn jpilot-ssl.info GPL None jwgc-ssl.info GPL Daniel Henninger kdebase3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed kdelibs3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed kdenetwork3.infoGPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed lftp-ssl.info GPL Justin F. Hallett libnasl3-ssl.info GPL Corey Halpin libnessus-ssl.info GPL None libnessus3-ssl.info GPL Corey Halpin libsoup-ssl.infoGPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team links-ssl.info GPL Finlay Dobbie lynx-ssl.info GPL None msmtp.info GPL Darian Lanx mutt-ssl.info GPL Christian Swinehart neon23-ssl-0.23.9-11.info LGPLChristian Schaffner neon24-ssl.info LGPLChristian Schaffner openhbci.info LGPLPeter O'Gorman proftpd.infoGPL Justin F. Hallett pyopenssl-py.info LGPLDaniel Henninger qca.infoLGPLBenjamin Reed samba-ldap.info GPL None samba.info GPL None sitecopy-ssl.info GPL Max Horn socat-ssl.info GPL Chris Dolan soup-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone squid-ssl.info GPL Benjamin Reed stunnel4.info GPL Thomas Diemer sylpheed-ssl.info GPL None vtun.info GPL None wget-ssl.info GPL Sylvain Cuaz xchat-ssl.info GPL Max Horn stable/main net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett stable/crypto - clamav.info GPL Remi Mommsen dcgui-qt-ssl.info GPL Hanspeter Niederstrasser dods.info GPL Jeffrey Whitaker ethereal-ssl.info GPL Max Horn fetchmail-ssl.info GPL Eric Knauel gabber-ssl-0.8.7-22.infoGPL Max Horn gnome-vfs-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone gnome-vfs2-ssl.info GPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team gnomemeeting.info GPL/LGPLShawn Hsiao irssi-ssl.info GPL Max Horn kdebase3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed kdelibs3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed lftp-ssl.info GPL Justin F. Hallett libnessus-ssl.info GPL None libsoup-ssl.infoGPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team links-ssl.info GPL Finlay Dobbie lynx-ssl-2.8.4-23.info GPL Alexander Strange lynx-ssl.info GPL None mutt-ssl-1.4i-31.info GPL Christian Swinehart neon23-ssl-0.23.9-11.info LGPLChristian Schaffner neon24-ssl.info LGPLChristian Schaffner openhbci.info LGPLPeter O'Gorman samba-ldap-2.2.8a-21.info GPL None samba.info GPL None sitecopy-ssl.info GPL Max Horn soup-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone squid-ssl.info GPL Benjamin Reed stunnel4.info GPL Thomas Diemer wget-ssl.info GPL Sylvain Cuaz xchat-ssl.info GPL Max Horn dclib0-ssl and valknut-ssl have modified their licenses to allow linking with openssl, but valknut also has a build dep on gt3-dev, which is gpl'd -- probably still not compatible 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? 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
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
lftp doesn't link to ssl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]$ deplist lftp === (lftp) === Depends: expat-shlibs, gettext, libiconv, libncurses5-shlibs, readline5-shlibs --- TS http://southofheaven.org/ Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 29-Mar-05, at 10:09 AM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
ahh that shouldn't be that thanks. --- TS http://southofheaven.org/ Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 29-Mar-05, at 10:58 AM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:27 AM, TheSin wrote: lftp doesn't link to ssl Package: lftp Version: 3.1.1 Revision: 10 ### Depends: gettext, libiconv, readline5-shlibs, libncurses5-shlibs BuildDepends: gettext-dev, libiconv-dev, readline5, openssl097, libncurses5 I looked at the BuildDepends line. Also, I forgot to mention this is a list of .info files, _not_ packages. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]$ deplist lftp === (lftp) === Depends: expat-shlibs, gettext, libiconv, libncurses5-shlibs, readline5-shlibs --- TS http://southofheaven.org/ Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 29-Mar-05, at 10:09 AM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel -- Lars Rosengreen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.margay.org/~lars --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
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. rantIf 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 29, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Freek Dijkstra wrote: 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. I'm not sure that I agree. Section 3 of the LGPL allows you to convert a LGPL'd work to the full GPL. If you link against openssl, this is no longer possible because the aggregate is not compatible with the GPL due to the openssl advertising clause. Section 10 says you may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. The LGPL is more like the X11-licende (aka modified BSD-license), which is also non-restrictive. rantIf 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 I personally think the MIT/BSD/X11 licenses are a lot more permissive in what they allow than the LGPL is. When I first started writing open source software in the early 1980's, we all released our code into the public domain and didn't worry about all this license stuff. Sometimes I miss those days ;) -Lars 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel -- Lars Rosengreen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.margay.org/~lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Macks wrote: On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 04:48:04PM -0800, Trevor Harmon wrote: On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:22 AM, David H. wrote: 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. I assume you're joking about the lawyer bit, no, I am not. That are exactly the words that they told me. The likelyhood that we will end up in court because we violate the GPL is about 0. Not to mention that we are not the active party in this case. The long version on this topic is about 2 hours and a dinner worth. but if I understand your point correctly, I disagree. We shouldn't take licensing issues lightly. It would be hypocritical to ignore licensing for .info files while at the same time expecting everyone to respect the license for Fink itself. There are enough GPL violations going on already (http://gpl-violations.org/) without setting bad examples. /me nods In this case the GPL does not good. It is a pain in our ass requiring us to take measures which influence the way we setup our infrastructure and the like. That is nowhere near being fesable. Furthermore, although I do not have four highly paid lawyers at my disposal, I believe the law says that only the copyright holder -- that is, the author of the .info file -- can choose what license his work is distributed under. The Fink community cannot choose for him. This is in agreement with other US copyright-law executive summaries I've read. Yes, but not with European. In practice here, .info submissions go via SourceForge, which is slathered with notices that it is for open source software development only, and Fink is distributed under GPL. Especially by that latter point, it appears that anyone contributing a file to be part of fink would be placing that file under GPL as well. Sorry, but that is downright wrong. As long as I do nto sign my right of sole use and enjoyment over to Fink Developer Network, the copyright as well as the licensing remains in my hands. Of course Fink may choose to reject my patch when its licensing does not fit into a scheme we choose, but as long as that not happens, that patch is mine to deal with and it is licensed as I find fit. That is why all my patches would be licensed as BSD for example. - -d dan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCSAGYPMoaMn4kKR4RAheRAJ43To7CSTVsBS++hFxFQOz6PX+XTACgnL3m oFUP0irYxexS6ensghK+tqY= =4iG+ -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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
David H. wrote: no, I am not. That are exactly the words that they told me. The likelyhood that we will end up in court because we violate the GPL is about 0. Not to mention that we are not the active party in this case. The long version on this topic is about 2 hours and a dinner worth. As the PR guy I'm amazed that that is the only concern you have. :P I think bucking the GPL with that kind of attitude is a bad idea. If it were the 'system library' thing is a bit murky, I think it could still be considered such, even though we're installing an updated version in an alternate location that's one thing, but if it's f**k it, let them try to sue us that's another thing altogether. Is it really that hard to set things that want openssl097 to Restrictive until we can get them either building against the system libcrypto or updated to use GNUTLS? (Or confirmed to have a compatible license?) Yes, but not with European. And where is Fink incorporated again? Sorry, but that is downright wrong. As long as I do nto sign my right of sole use and enjoyment over to Fink Developer Network, the copyright as well as the licensing remains in my hands. Of course Fink may choose to reject my patch when its licensing does not fit into a scheme we choose, but as long as that not happens, that patch is mine to deal with and it is licensed as I find fit. That is why all my patches would be licensed as BSD for example. I agree here. I can't imagine there's such thing as implied copyright assignment just by uploading. Copyright is always the creator's unless specifically notified. I doubt it will be much of a big deal to contact all maintainers and ask them for consent to consider their .info files to be released under the GPL, and to put a notice up that all future submissions will be the same. --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Benjamin Reed wrote: David H. wrote: no, I am not. That are exactly the words that they told me. The likelyhood that we will end up in court because we violate the GPL is about 0. Not to mention that we are not the active party in this case. The long version on this topic is about 2 hours and a dinner worth. As the PR guy I'm amazed that that is the only concern you have. :P You know my stance on licensing very well, especially when it comes to the GPL. I think bucking the GPL with that kind of attitude is a bad idea. If it were the 'system library' thing is a bit murky, I think it could still be considered such, even though we're installing an updated version in an alternate location that's one thing, but if it's f**k it, let them try to sue us that's another thing altogether. If I had said that, yes indeed. What I meant to express is that we should not waste our time adressing this issue when there are more important things to get done. Let's take the g++ ABI changes for one thing. And yes, I also think that we should not adopt a policy or attitude where we try to go out of our way just because there might be legal implications. When it comes down to hard facts, then I am more than willing to change something, do something about a given situation. So please apologise for my lack of emotional detachment when I said what I did. Is it really that hard to set things that want openssl097 to Restrictive until we can get them either building against the system libcrypto or updated to use GNUTLS? (Or confirmed to have a compatible license?) Yes, but not with European. And where is Fink incorporated again? That does not matter when it comes to copy right. Not at all. Sorry, but that is downright wrong. As long as I do nto sign my right of sole use and enjoyment over to Fink Developer Network, the copyright as well as the licensing remains in my hands. Of course Fink may choose to reject my patch when its licensing does not fit into a scheme we choose, but as long as that not happens, that patch is mine to deal with and it is licensed as I find fit. That is why all my patches would be licensed as BSD for example. I agree here. I can't imagine there's such thing as implied copyright assignment just by uploading. There is not. Just as the copyright is always bound to the countries copyright where the work has been finished, or created. Copyright is always the creator's unless specifically notified. I doubt it will be much of a big deal to contact all maintainers and ask them for consent to consider their .info files to be released under the GPL, and to put a notice up that all future submissions will be the same. Actually I would very much enjoy it if we had a choice here between BSD ad GPL. - -d -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCSB4FPMoaMn4kKR4RAsfxAKCKhKC0cVwiCjN7GV1xckPPk2ATZQCdEyqR Lj7s+ahgp3+aNK8Jpax4098= =su8v -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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:08 AM, David H. wrote: And yes, I also think that we should not adopt a policy or attitude where we try to go out of our way just because there might be legal implications. In this spirit, can we have our old slogan back? Unix software for your Mac? (taken down because there might be legal implications...) -- Dave --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:08 AM, David H. wrote: Benjamin Reed wrote: And where is Fink incorporated again? That does not matter when it comes to copy right. Not at all. Actually, what matters for copyright is the country in which the item was published. If there are conflicting copyright laws, then the Bern convention (to which virtually all copyright-granting countries agreed) says that the governing law is that of the country in which the item was published. I don't know how to interpret this for something which is published on the internet, but for something like fink, indeed the country of incorporation of the publishing entity would appear to be the relevant one. -- Dave --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David R. Morrison wrote: On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:08 AM, David H. wrote: And yes, I also think that we should not adopt a policy or attitude where we try to go out of our way just because there might be legal implications. In this spirit, can we have our old slogan back? Unix software for your Mac? (taken down because there might be legal implications...) The term Unix is still a registered trademark :P - -d -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCSEYKPMoaMn4kKR4RAsnhAKCVPRZWLSlLeFHNl5OjC4dbs34cYQCfYjU4 GPxtnvwdwM+HfkeIQOhaiCI= =erJY -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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
-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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 27, 2005, at 9:22 AM, David H. wrote: -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. I highly agree. This is a can of legal worms and gordian knots we don't want to mess with. Say, for instance we license all our patches under the gpl. If someone wants to later add ssl to that app, they can't, unless they get our permission, etc. :-) If we pretend it doesn't exist we don't have to care. ;-) -chris zubrzycki - -- PGP public key: http://homepage.mac.com/beren/publickey.txt ID: 0xA2ABC070 Fprint: 26B0 BA6B A409 FA83 42B3 1688 FBF9 8232 A2AB C070 A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:22 AM, David H. wrote: 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. I assume you're joking about the lawyer bit, but if I understand your point correctly, I disagree. We shouldn't take licensing issues lightly. It would be hypocritical to ignore licensing for .info files while at the same time expecting everyone to respect the license for Fink itself. There are enough GPL violations going on already (http://gpl-violations.org/) without setting bad examples. Furthermore, although I do not have four highly paid lawyers at my disposal, I believe the law says that only the copyright holder -- that is, the author of the .info file -- can choose what license his work is distributed under. The Fink community cannot choose for him. Now, realistically, I would say that all .info authors (myself included) don't really care about licensing and consider their work public domain, but that doesn't mean we are free to ignore the issue and treat licenses like BS, as you say. Trevor --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
Anthony, Thanks very much for this very helpful message. I'm curious of there is any difference for software released under the LGPL instead of the GPL. Can it legally link to openSSL? -- Dave Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As one of the regular participants on debian-legal, and probably one of the participants in that thread, I'd like to clarify a few things: - OpenSSL is not considered 'part of the system libraries', and thus does not fall under that excemption in the GPL. Debian can not ever use the system libraries exception. If you carefuly read GPL(3), it's clear why: need not include anything that is normally distributed...with the major components...of the operating system...unless that component itself accompanies the executable. On a Debian FTP server or cd/dvd set, everything accompanies each other. So even if openssl is normally distributed with the major components of the Debian OS, it doesn't matter; the executable is being distributed with openssl. If you link against Apple's openssl, then Fink can probably use this exception. - The FSF GPL seems to argue (in their GPL FAQ) that if a (GPL licenced) application has specific code to interface with a non-GPL package, then you may assume that such an exception is implied by the authors of the code. I would then logically conclude, that would imply those authors were at fault by just distributing that specific code interfacing with OpenSSL. However, I am not a lawyer, but had the impression that the legal people did not agree with my logic here. So I gave up. There are two problems with this. 1. Debian is very conservative on licensing issues. So we never allow this argument. 2. This would really only apply if OpenSSL support was in the software from the start and no code has been borrowed from other GPL projects. If the OpenSSL code was added later then contributers before the addition of OpenSSL certainly can't be said to have intended their code to be used with gpl-incompatible OpenSSL. If the project has used GPL code from other projects then there is no reason to expect those authors are OK with OpenSSL either. --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
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? Dave PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 14, 2005, at 1:02 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: Lars, Thanks for raising this issue. It has come up before, but it has perhaps not received the attention it deserves. My reading of the links you provided suggests that you are correct: we may not link GPL'd software against fink's openssl package unless the license explictly permits linking to openssl. (In many cases, there is an alternative -- link to the system's openssl -- although this is not great because it doesn't get updated as frequently.) I think we are ok, as long as we aren't distributing any binaries. For packages in unstable, the only thing we are distributing is a recipe for creating a package which the user has to build from source themselves. We are not actually distributing modified source or binaries. The bindist may be another matter. Do we do this in stable/crypto at all? Did you happen to jot down the names of the offending packages in unstable/crypto? Yes, I think we do. I'll try to construct a list of packages that may be affected. -Lars -- Lars Rosengreen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.margay.org/~lars --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
As one of the regular participants on debian-legal, and probably one of the participants in that thread, I'd like to clarify a few things: - OpenSSL is not considered 'part of the system libraries', and thus does not fall under that excemption in the GPL. Debian can not ever use the system libraries exception. If you carefuly read GPL(3), it's clear why: need not include anything that is normally distributed...with the major components...of the operating system...unless that component itself accompanies the executable. On a Debian FTP server or cd/dvd set, everything accompanies each other. So even if openssl is normally distributed with the major components of the Debian OS, it doesn't matter; the executable is being distributed with openssl. If you link against Apple's openssl, then Fink can probably use this exception. - The FSF GPL seems to argue (in their GPL FAQ) that if a (GPL licenced) application has specific code to interface with a non-GPL package, then you may assume that such an exception is implied by the authors of the code. I would then logically conclude, that would imply those authors were at fault by just distributing that specific code interfacing with OpenSSL. However, I am not a lawyer, but had the impression that the legal people did not agree with my logic here. So I gave up. There are two problems with this. 1. Debian is very conservative on licensing issues. So we never allow this argument. 2. This would really only apply if OpenSSL support was in the software from the start and no code has been borrowed from other GPL projects. If the OpenSSL code was added later then contributers before the addition of OpenSSL certainly can't be said to have intended their code to be used with gpl-incompatible OpenSSL. If the project has used GPL code from other projects then there is no reason to expect those authors are OK with OpenSSL either. --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 14, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Chris Zubrzycki wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 14, 2005, at 5:09 PM, David Brown wrote: On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:15:21PM -0500, Benjamin Reed wrote: To me, it would seem kind of arbitrary for openssl 0.9.6 to be allowed, but 0.9.7 to not be just because we're building our own copy of it. When Apple releases some future OS release with 0.9.7 on it, is it magically OK suddenly? Yes. Section 3 of the GPL: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. And it doesn't really matter what the OpenSSL intent is. They use code that is already licensed under a license with the advertising clause. The original authors are not willing to weaken that requirement, so it is, and probably always will be incompatible with the GPL. I remember this coming up before somewhere. If the orig. author adds openssl compatibility, there is no problem, as the author may do whatever he wants with his code. The problem would lie in a fork of GPL'd code that added ssl support via openssl. As fink provides an update of a system library, we should not worry about the issue. We don't overwrite system libs as policy. Since it's already in os x, we're good. It is a pretty odd update. Fink's openssl package is not available from Apple or endorsed by them. Not only does it not upgrade /usr/lib/libssl or /usr/lib/libcryto, it doesn't touch any of the binaries in /bin and /usr/bin that link against these libraries. In fact, it doesn't touch a single file distributed as part of OS X! The only things that benefit from this update are packages included as part of fink, and perhaps some software a user may have compiled on their own. We go out of our way to keep fink separate from the operating system. I an not sure it makes sense to then turn around and claim we are part of the operating system when it suits our purposes. - -chris zubrzycki - - -- PGP public key: http://homepage.mac.com/beren/publickey.txt ID: 0xA2ABC070 Fingerprint: 26B0 BA6B A409 FA83 42B3 1688 FBF9 8232 A2AB C070 ICBM Address: 39.795906N -75.056029W -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkI2E4YACgkQ+/mCMqKrwHDawgCdFHYjVuxJUCh8Jb9hbiRdp1mD 4Y0AnRUQwlCgDfPpVP/pZFTR3ouT+oJr =VnjN -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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel -- Lars Rosengreen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.margay.org/~lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
Hi, Sorry to jump in to this topic a bit late (I'm a loyal list-lurker). About a year ago, I got annoyed by the fact that netatalk (a tool to provide AFP support) was not compiled with OpenSSL in the Debian distribution, meaning that passwords were not encrypted. I engaged in a lenghty discussion on the debian-legal mailing list, and also asked the authors of the package about their opinion. Some things I recall about that discussion: - You, as a person may link a GNU licensed application against OpenSSL (or visa versa, compile a non-GNU compatible app against a GNU library). - However, you may not distribute the resulting binary, since that would be coverd by a single licence according to the FSF, and doing so would violate either the GPL or the OpenSSL licence. - This also applies to dynamic linking, even though the resulting binary does not contain any bit of OpenSSL produced code (!). - This previous statement is a controversial, and not everyone agrees with it. However, so far no-one is willing to go into legal battle over this with the FSF since if they loose, that would mean commercial application can easily incorporate GPL libraries, something the FSF sees as damaging to the open source community. - OpenSSL is not considered 'part of the system libraries', and thus does not fall under that excemption in the GPL. - The exception mentioned (like the one valknut-ssl has) is a good solution. - However, such an exception to the GPL is very, very hard to later add. For example, the netatalk authors were most willing to add it, but felt they could not: they used sources from other GPL-based packages, and did not know anymore who contributed to that. Officialy, they would have to ask each and every contributer to agree with the change in licencing (adding the excempt). This is not practical. - The FSF GPL seems to argue (in their GPL FAQ) that if a (GPL licenced) application has specific code to interface with a non-GPL package, then you may assume that such an exception is implied by the authors of the code. I would then logically conclude, that would imply those authors were at fault by just distributing that specific code interfacing with OpenSSL. However, I am not a lawyer, but had the impression that the legal people did not agree with my logic here. So I gave up. - You can try to compile a package against GnuTLS instead of OpenSSL if you distribute it as a binary. (Note: GnuTLS is a package to mimick OpenSSL, but only under a different, GPL, licence. sarcasmSo much for the argument that Open Source prevents people from writing the same code twice/sarcasm). - There is no problem if you distribute OpenSSL and a GNU-licenced application as source, and let the user compile it. Kind regards, Freek Dijkstra --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David R. Morrison wrote: | Lars, | | Thanks for raising this issue. It has come up before, but it has perhaps | not received the attention it deserves. | | My reading of the links you provided suggests that you are correct: we may | not link GPL'd software against fink's openssl package unless the license | explictly permits linking to openssl. (In many cases, there is an | alternative -- link to the system's openssl -- although this is not great | because it doesn't get updated as frequently.) | | Do we do this in stable/crypto at all? Did you happen to jot down the | names of the offending packages in unstable/crypto? | Personally i am _very_ unhappy with this nervousness about Licensing. the GPL is not meant to inhibit what we are doing, nor is it meant to make our work more complicated. This is one of the cases where I assume that it would be correct to simply do as we wish, looking forward to whatever may come. I will run this by our lawyers tomorrow, I think the risk is marginal compared to tha mount of work we shall have to complete to fully comply with this. My 2 cents. - -d -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCNfzkPMoaMn4kKR4RAs6PAJ9ihHLk7A8VZ33VEc3389KrxSP5WACdHscy fntPBFWyGTyL67oi7httYo0= =ykNK -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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
David R. Morrison wrote: My reading of the links you provided suggests that you are correct: we may not link GPL'd software against fink's openssl package unless the license explictly permits linking to openssl. (In many cases, there is an alternative -- link to the system's openssl -- although this is not great because it doesn't get updated as frequently.) To me, it would seem kind of arbitrary for openssl 0.9.6 to be allowed, but 0.9.7 to not be just because we're building our own copy of it. When Apple releases some future OS release with 0.9.7 on it, is it magically OK suddenly? --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:44PM +0100, David H. wrote: Personally i am _very_ unhappy with this nervousness about Licensing. the GPL is not meant to inhibit what we are doing, nor is it meant to make our work more complicated. [...] I will run this by our lawyers tomorrow, Would it also be good to ask OpenSSL themselves what their intent is? Not directly related to this particular question but just wanted to mention the existence of http://www.softwarefreedom.org/, who have staff who are wise in the ways of open-source law and licensing. dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 14, 2005, at 1:02 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: Lars, Thanks for raising this issue. It has come up before, but it has perhaps not received the attention it deserves. My reading of the links you provided suggests that you are correct: we may not link GPL'd software against fink's openssl package unless the license explictly permits linking to openssl. (In many cases, there is an alternative -- link to the system's openssl -- although this is not great because it doesn't get updated as frequently.) Do we do this in stable/crypto at all? Did you happen to jot down the names of the offending packages in unstable/crypto? It would be a long list! Some examples that I found are xchat-ssl, wget-ssl, valknut-ssl, sylpheed-ssl, stunnel4, squid-ssl, socat-ssl, and sitecopy-ssl. I assume the same packages in stable would also be affected if indeed this is a problem. I realize licensing issue are a headache, and I am sorry for bringing this up, I just would like to do the right thing. ...so would linking against the system's libssl be ok as far as fink's policies are concerned? Thanks, Dave To: fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net From: Lars Rosengreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:32:09 -0800 I would like to figure out if it is ok for me to create a gpl'd package that links against fink's libssl. Looking in unstable/crypto, it looks like there are several packages that do this, yet I have read elsewhere that doing so violates the gpl because openssl's license is not compatible with the gpl. The gpl has an exemption for libraries that are distributed with the operating system, but I'm not sure if that would also cover fink's openssl package. Some enlightenment would be much appreciated :) http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 thanks, -Lars -- Lars Rosengreen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.margay.org/~lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:15:21PM -0500, Benjamin Reed wrote: To me, it would seem kind of arbitrary for openssl 0.9.6 to be allowed, but 0.9.7 to not be just because we're building our own copy of it. When Apple releases some future OS release with 0.9.7 on it, is it magically OK suddenly? Yes. Section 3 of the GPL: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. And it doesn't really matter what the OpenSSL intent is. They use code that is already licensed under a license with the advertising clause. The original authors are not willing to weaken that requirement, so it is, and probably always will be incompatible with the GPL. Dave --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
Lars Rosengreen wrote: On Mar 14, 2005, at 1:02 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: Do we do this in stable/crypto at all? Did you happen to jot down the names of the offending packages in unstable/crypto? It would be a long list! Some examples that I found are xchat-ssl, wget-ssl, valknut-ssl, sylpheed-ssl, stunnel4, squid-ssl, socat-ssl, and sitecopy-ssl. Note that valknut-ssl has a special exception in its license file followed by GPL v2: blockquote In addition, as a special exception, Mathias Küster give permission to link the code of this program with the OpenSSL library (or with modified versions of OpenSSL that use the same license as OpenSSL), and distribute linked combinations including the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. /blockquote xchat-ssl does not have a similar exception listed. So if any action is taken on this issue, it will have to be done on a case by case basis. Hanspeter -- Hanspeter Niederstrasser, Ph.D.Dept. of Cell Biology hniederstrasser at cellbiology.wustl.edu Campus Box 8228 Cooper Lab 660 South Euclid Avenue Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis, MO 63110 --- 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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 14, 2005, at 5:09 PM, David Brown wrote: On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:15:21PM -0500, Benjamin Reed wrote: To me, it would seem kind of arbitrary for openssl 0.9.6 to be allowed, but 0.9.7 to not be just because we're building our own copy of it. When Apple releases some future OS release with 0.9.7 on it, is it magically OK suddenly? Yes. Section 3 of the GPL: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. And it doesn't really matter what the OpenSSL intent is. They use code that is already licensed under a license with the advertising clause. The original authors are not willing to weaken that requirement, so it is, and probably always will be incompatible with the GPL. I remember this coming up before somewhere. If the orig. author adds openssl compatibility, there is no problem, as the author may do whatever he wants with his code. The problem would lie in a fork of GPL'd code that added ssl support via openssl. As fink provides an update of a system library, we should not worry about the issue. We don't overwrite system libs as policy. Since it's already in os x, we're good. - -chris zubrzycki - - -- PGP public key: http://homepage.mac.com/beren/publickey.txt ID: 0xA2ABC070 Fingerprint: 26B0 BA6B A409 FA83 42B3 1688 FBF9 8232 A2AB C070 ICBM Address: 39.795906N -75.056029W -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkI2E4YACgkQ+/mCMqKrwHDawgCdFHYjVuxJUCh8Jb9hbiRdp1mD 4Y0AnRUQwlCgDfPpVP/pZFTR3ouT+oJr =VnjN -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=6595alloc_id=14396op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
