Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On 2004-08-09 13:55:01 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<debian_public@macfreek.nl> wrote:
Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl.
From a quick inspection, I don't think that will be true for all of a
netatalk binary compiled with openssl-related parts enabled. I think
you realised this in your later message.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs [...]
However, I do not entirally understand what is being said there.
I don't think OpenSSL is *normally* distributed with the major
components of the debian operating system, so that doesn't apply. It
is only a standard priority package in the utils section, not a
required or even important priority. Sorry.
A couple of bits from the other subthread:
http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 OpenSSL doesn't give
that permission - they just claim it's not needed for any major
distribution. I assume we're not major in their eyes then. :-/
It is sad that despite all copyright holders are more then willing to
co-operate, there still is something holding them back.
Please attribute the fault to whoever you like, but not the copyright
holders.
You wrote that it's impractical to contact all copyright holders, so
how can you make this conclusion safely about all of them? You seem to
be exaggerating, so I think I'm right to doubt your "NO derivative
work" conclusion: is that a similar exaggeration?
I don't think there's much point in attributing "fault" for this
situation anyway. It still won't get the permission.
--
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
Reply to: