Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On 09-08-2004 14:18, "MJ Ray" <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> I don't know. I would probably look at porting to gnutls if no-one has
> tried that yet.
Yes, I've seen the suggestion before. It seems like a non-option to me.
As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself (which is of
course perfectly fine, and allowed according to both the GPL and the openssl
licence) then to change the code of netatalk to have it link to gnutls.
>> 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. [...]
I don't think laws have anything to do with it.
The issue at case (im my naive opinion) is that GPL is so strict that I am
not allowed to distribute a program which is *partily* GPL, partialy other
open source software. Even not if I *do* distribute the source code with it.
If this is not the issue, please have someone explain me what does prevent
netatalk from linking with openssl and distributing it in Debian.
>> All lawyers on this 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.
LOL. Next time, I'll change my rant to "all lawyer, not on this list, find
another job" :-)
Regards, and thanks for the prompt feedback!
Freek
Reply to: