Daniel,
What if we just set up the bindist to blacklist any GPL software with
a BuildDepends on openssl100 from building there? Since this restriction is
about binary distributions, if we only provide the user with a script to
build the package locally, I don't see how we are in violation.
what about a debian style license file
They list all different licenses which links to each license in the docs dir,
so if a file uses openssl, that file could be under that license and the rest
under gpl. I know Debian doesn’t have the same issue since it has ssl as the
base system but wouldn
> On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:29 AM, TheSin wrote:
>
> if the license says that pens can not be distributed in binary form wouldn’t
> it only be ssl that needs to be built, couldn’t other packages which only
> dynamically use the dylib still be binary distributed since it does not
> contain the op
if the license says that pens can not be distributed in binary form wouldn’t it
only be ssl that needs to be built, couldn’t other packages which only
dynamically use the dylib still be binary distributed since it does not contain
the open ssl code or library directly it only uses and as such is
> On Jun 20, 2015, at 17:05, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Alexander Hansen
> mailto:alexanderk.han...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Fedora doesn't have a build dependency on OpenSSL for their cvs package but
>> does build it against a MIT licensed krb5 which in tu
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Alexander Hansen <
alexanderk.han...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fedora doesn't have a build dependency on OpenSSL for their cvs
> package but does build it against a MIT licensed krb5 which in turn is
> built against OpenSSL.
>
>
>> Daniel
>
>
> That’s kind of irrelevan
>
> Fedora doesn't have a build dependency on OpenSSL for their cvs package but
> does build it against a MIT licensed krb5 which in turn is built against
> OpenSSL.
>
> Daniel
That’s kind of irrelevant unless they’re using an OpenSSL that doesn’t *come
with the OS*. So unless you’re talki
On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Daniel Johnson
wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Daniel Johnson > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Alexander Hansen <
> alexanderk.han...@gmail.com > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
>
> On Jun 20, 2015, at 16:03, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> 1+2) Ah. gotcha. As a simple base example then, is our cvs package, which
>> uses openssl100, in violation? And if so, do we have to mark it as
>> Restrictive? Or worse yet, pull it and stop supporting selfupdate-cvs on
>> di
> On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Daniel Johnson
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Alexander Hansen
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Alexander Hansen
wrote:
Since the system’s Op
> On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:58, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> Aren't these restrictions specific to binary distribution system? If so,
> couldn't these be blacklisted from the bindist and require the user to build
> them locally under fink?
>
Quoting myself:
> And if so, do we have to mark it as Re
> On Jun 20, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Alexander Hansen
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Alexander Hansen
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since the system’s OpenSSL is going away for 10.11 we’ve got a bit of a
>>> pickle.
>>>
>>> My und
Also it is curious that under the section on the OpenSSL license, this web
page claims there is no reason not to build against it.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Aren't these restrictions specific to bin
Aren't these restrictions specific to binary distribution system? If so,
couldn't these be blacklisted from the bindist and require the user to
build them locally under fink?
On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Alexander Hansen
wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Alexander Hansen
>> wrote:
>>
>> Since the system’s OpenSSL is going away for 10.11 we’ve got a bit of a
>> pickle.
>>
>> My understanding is that our packages that use openssl100-dev and have
>> binari
> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Alexander Hansen
> wrote:
>
> Since the system’s OpenSSL is going away for 10.11 we’ve got a bit of a
> pickle.
>
> My understanding is that our packages that use openssl100-dev and have
> binaries are now technically in violation of the openssl license, which
Since the system’s OpenSSL is going away for 10.11 we’ve got a bit of a pickle.
My understanding is that our packages that use openssl100-dev and have binaries
are now technically in violation of the openssl license, which only allows
redistribution against an OpenSSL which is shipped with the O
17 matches
Mail list logo
