Re: libgcrypt brain dead?
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> writes:
> On 21 March 2010 06:59, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, that is my understanding of how Debian has made decisions too. I
> should be able to dig up references if required.
> Also I do note that there are a number of PAM modules currently in the
> Debian archive that do link against openssl. Not to mention
> applications that use both PAM and openssl - there are GPLed PAM
> modules in our archive too. I hope I haven't started a witch hunt...
No, I suspect I was just completely wrong. Thank you for the corrections,
all!
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: