Re: libgcrypt brain dead?
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 01:33:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
> > On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 12:03 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> The primary problem with using OpenSSL with OpenLDAP is NSS and PAM
> >> modules, which pull the libraries into just about any GPL'd (or
> >> other-licensed) package in the distribution in one way or another.
> > [...]
>
> > Applications that use NSS/PAM, and individual NSS/PAM modules, are
> > useful without the other and it is a matter of user configuration
> > whether they are used together at all. The OpenLDAP modules are not
> > used by default. So I don't see that copyleft licences of applications
> > using NSS/PAM can possibly extend to them.
>
> My understanding is that that's not the standard that Debian has
> historically applied, and I don't think it's particularly useful for
> anyone who isn't a lawyer (such as myself) to debate it.
should there be a usertag 'lawyer' to note which bugs should not be decided by
a hacker but a real lawyer? Has a real lawyer even been used to solve a bug
in Debian?
--
| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | http://kevix.myopenid.com |
| : :' : The Universal OS | mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/ |
| `. `' http://www.debian.org/ | http://counter.li.org [#238656]|
|___`-____Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed _________|
Reply to: