Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On 2004-08-09 12:36:46 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably
the exception (without asking all possible contributors)
I think so.
3. Is there any way of getting netatalk with encrypted passwords in
I don't know. I would probably look at porting to gnutls if no-one has
tried that yet.
I can think of source-only distributions, or asking to move it out
main. However, I do not fully understand the implications of this.
IIRC, this licence conflict makes it non-distributable, so "move it
out of main" wouldn't allow you to compile against OpenSSL.
PS: to play the devils advocate on this list: is this !@#&$(%$ really
necessary for me as an end-user to get open-source software to work?
Sadly, yes, someone has to do this, until laws change. If the
developers haven't done it and it's important to you, you need to
cause some development on this...
Copyright won't necessarily ignore you (or us) just because you ignore
copyright. That is the fault of your lawmakers, at least partly.
Debian aims to be universal, so can't really rely on the few blanket
copyright permissions for certain kinds of use.
rather had spend all this time doing something *useful*. All lawyers
list: please find an other job. ;-)
That would actually be unhelpful, assuming we have more helpful
lawyers than evil spy lawyers on this list. I'm glad you labelled that
as a rant.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast