Re: licenses

[Gabriele Giacone <1o5g4r8o@gmail.com>]

Hi Rogerio,

Rogério Brito wrote:
> I think that there are other packages in the archive that include this
> file.  That being said, why not use one of the libraries that already
> provide md5 implementations?
[...]
> The samething here. I, for instance, use libssl-dev for a package of
> mine (hfsprogs) that needs sha1 implementations.
> 
> You may also consider using the gnutls implmentation of those. A small
> patch to adapt those might be very fruitful.
> 
> Also, when the libraries providing the functions get improvements (like,
> for instance, specialized versions optimized for some newer CPU arch),
> you get those for for your programs. And maintenance becomes easier.

The question was about licenses because if they were ok I would build as is.
This is the scenario:
the application I'm packaging [1] includes and depends on a class
library [2], a bunch of classes for many purposes, which includes and
depends on those sha1/md5 implementations.
I already tried both openssl-dev and gnutls but function names change
and I should patch the code. I would try other ways.
An alternative way could be removing them from build process given that,
class library is a collection of classes but it seems that main
application doesn't use those md5/sha1-related classes.

Any license points of view?

Cheers,
Gabriele

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/559412
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/559719