Excerpts from Michael Fladischer's message of 2014-10-21 08:58:32 -0500: > Hi, > > I'm the maintainer for src:librabbitmq and the binary package > librabbitmq1 is linked against libssl1.0.0 (OpenSSL). > > Now I was approached by Julien Kerihuel from the OpenChange project, who > release their software under the terms of GPL-3, asking if I could > provide an alternative to the OpenSSL-linked library so they can use it > without causing a license conflict. > > Sadly librabbitmq only supports OpenSSL, there is rudimentary support > for GnuTLS but it seems to be severely broken at the moment. > > Considering this, is it a good idea to provide a librabbitmq1-nossl > binary package that was built without OpenSSL while still having > librabbitmq1 with OpenSSL-support? > > I could not find another package that does this, so I assume that a > similar situation did not yet occur (unlikely) or that there where > arguments against providing such a package variant. >
Perhaps consider linking it against cyassl? It has a minimal OpenSSL compatibility API and is GPL2+ so it should be fine combined with OpenChange. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1414008467-sup-1...@fewbar.com
