Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:11:18 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/gaim Makefile distinfo pkg-plist Message-ID: <20031217211118.GB84538@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <20031217204655.GB31706@madman.celabo.org> References: <200312171912.hBHJCPZk087088@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031217202305.GA84538@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <20031217204655.GB31706@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:46:55PM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:23:05PM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:12:25AM -0800, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > marcus 2003/12/17 11:12:25 PST > > >=20 > > > FreeBSD ports repository > > >=20 > > > Modified files: > > > net/gaim Makefile distinfo pkg-plist=20 > > > Log: > > > Remove the OpenSSL plug-in. The gaim authors do not feel OpenSSL is > > > a system library, and thus not part of the GPL exemption. > >=20 > > That's weird on a system where OpenSSL is part of the base distribution= ... > > (well crypto but it is indeed on the OS CD's and installed by default on > > all types of installations). > >=20 > > I would hope that the OpenSSL authors would give explicit permission to > > use the library in GPL products, but I'm guessing that would be too much > > to hope for... >=20 > [Disclaimer: I love gaim.] >=20 > The OpenSSL authors have. Well basically they say "if you add this exception to your GPL license everything is fine". What I'd like to see is for them to remove the advertising clause, or else issue a statement to the effect of "if you use the GNU GPL v2 or later, the advertising clause is removed", because of... > It is the *Gaim* authors who have > apparently gone looney. They insist that it is a GPL violation to > link Gaim with OpenSSL, since OpenSSL has an advertising clause and is > thus incompatible with the GPL. They do have some kind of a point -- it is incompatible on systems where OpenSSL is not part of the base system (afaik Solaris and others). And beca= use of that, like you, I see a continuing trend towards... > Of course, this benefits no one, except maybe the GNU TLS authors. > (The thread I saw had a subtext of ``The goal here is to replace > OpenSSL with GNU TLS.'' Or maybe I read in too much.) Well I "see" the same happening with other projects. Which is a real shame because OpenSSL is really the only choice for *BSD (because of licensing reasons) and it would mean another diversion between Linux and BSD. That's = why I feel that the first option above would be better. Considering the history= of this debate, I'm highly doubtful that something like that would happen though... Sorry that I had to pick this commit to chime in on, in hindsight it's not really this that I wanted to comment on... Moving to -chat... --Stijn --=20 The right half of the brain controls the left half of the body. This means that only left handed people are in their right mind. --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/4MZ2Y3r/tLQmfWcRAue6AKCrhQNgnE08X7fupdTYsM+tQAO7ZwCfd0rB bRrEOULjPZGVvqU7FVxzbCA= =wfJq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031217211118.GB84538>