Daniel Baumann wrote: > Krzysztof Burghardt wrote: > > Updated once again. I have listed all copyright holders. > btw, i didn't found GPL code in the package, so, binaries of the non-ssl > sources are properly distributable. > > Will copyright holders claim that I infringe on their rights? > we assume they can do that, so we can't link the GPL code against > openssl without explicit permission by upstream. would poco work with > gnutls? No, POCO have lacks GNUTLS support. > > Should I prepare both ssl and non-ssl packages? Or ssl only? > so, ssl is then not possible, except you could make it work with gnutls. I think it may be possible if it is not used in GPL programs, as parts of POCO have 4BSD license it is not possible even without SSL. So SSL version will not change anything. > although some people do include multiple tarballs into one orig.tar.gz > and unpack them on build-time, i consider this to be quite ugly, so it > was implicityly clear that you'll package it as a seperate source package :) Should I prepare -doc package now, or better wait with it to finish libpoco. BTW, I cannot find documentation license. There is only this note: --- [begin] --- POCO - C++ Portable Components 1.2.8 Copyright © 2007, Applied Informatics Software Engineering GmbH and Contributors --- [end] --- -- Krzysztof Burghardt <krzysztof@burghardt.pl> http://www.burghardt.pl/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: To jest =?UTF-8?Q?cz=C4=99=C5=9B=C4=87?= listu podpisana cyfrowo