-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.
W
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, sylphee
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 suddenl
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
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 a
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 -- al
-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 soft
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
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
