On 06/23/2009 02:52 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Finally, i note that the OpenSSL license contains the following stanza: > > * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "OpenSSL" > * nor may "OpenSSL" appear in their names without prior written > * permission of the OpenSSL Project. > > It's not clear to me whether any of the Crypt::OpenSSL::* modules have > actually received such permision from the OpenSSL project. I've written > the upstream author of the OpenSSL:: module today to ask about that, but > haven't heard back yet. I was curious what the maintainers of the other > *::OpenSSL::* modules know about that situation for their respective > modules. In response to my raising this question with the author of the OpenSSL perl module i was hoping to put into debian, he has apparently asked the OpenSSL team for permission, and has requested his module's removal from CPAN until he gets a positive response from the OpenSSL team. Have any of the other *::OpenSSL::* module maintainers (Damyan and Luk are the names i see most often in the changelogs) broached this issue with their respective upstreams? If so, what was the response? If not, is that because you don't think it's relevant? Or it was simply overlooked? I hate to be the goad about this, but i want to make sure we're respecting the wishes of developers and the explicit licensing of the software we use. --dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature