Re: ITP: elinks (split links and elinks)
Peter Gervai <grin@tolna.net> wrote:
[...]
> Doing that raised another question which I am not able to answer due the
> fuzzy discussions all around: can I discard 'links-ssl' (and possible
> 'elinks-ssl') and simply include SSL-enabled versions in main? There are
> several SSL-enabled packages in main but the policy (as far as my eyes
> serve me right) still seem to deny this. Anyone feeling authoritative
> regarding this?
> URL (for both): http://links.browser.org/
> License: GPL
[...]
Hello,
Afaics links-ssl breaks copyright as it is, it links against openssl
and is GPL, those two licenses are incompatible. fetchmail-ssl and
mutt also had this problem, and found two different solutions: mutt
uses gnutls instead of OpenSSL, fetchmail's upstream changed the
copyright:
| Specific permission is granted for the GPLed code in this distribition
| to be linked to OpenSSL without invoking GPL clause 2(b).
Iirc aj mentioned in one of his releases status updates, that this is
really a problem.
cu andreas
--
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest _tin_
http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~ametzler/debian/tin-snapshot/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: