Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
On Tuesday 24 July 2007 10:09, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> RE: The FSF position regarding OpenSSL as a system library in Debian.
> > ===
> > We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
> > The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
> > only code that accompanies genuinely fundamental components of the
> > system. I don't see anything to suggest that that's the case for
> > OpenSSL in Debian: the package only has important priority (as opposed
> > to glibc's required), there are only about 350 packages depending on it
> > (as opposed to glibc's 8500), and it isn't installed on a base system.
> > To put it plainly, if OpenSSL actually were a System Library, I would
> > expect it to look more like one.
> > -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
> > ===
> Steve, Kern and Anthony all made comments regarding the statement above.
> I just wanted to let you know that I've forwarded these comments to
> Brett Smith. :)
Concerning Brett's most recent answer: I have to agree that OpenSSL is not a
System Library in the very strict sense of the word.