Mark Purcell wrote: > What I'm actually > talking about is getting the licencing sorted out for the > next release of > hpoj to go into unstable (sid), so from that side there is no > rush for HP > to resolve the licence, just as long as it is being > progressed within HP.
Hi, Mark and everyone else. At a status update, I met with our attorney this afternoon and explained everything. He understands the issue and said he would get back to me within the next couple of weeks with a recommended license-exception statement. It may take a similar form to the FSF's recommendation but spell out the exact license used by OpenSSL (stored in a separate file in the hpoj package) for purposes of identifying OpenSSL. It may turn out to be broader than I would have preferred, but anything narrower may end up being extremely hard to define adequately. I'll let you know when I find out more. Since for various reasons I'm trying hard to release hpoj-0.90 by the end of July, what are the long-term implications if for whatever reason this issue isn't resolved by then and I have to release 0.90 without the special exception for OpenSSL? Will it be sufficient for me to subsequently update the license statements in CVS and generate a corresponding patch which you can apply to your 0.90 package in unstable (preferable), or would I have to release a whole new tarball with a different version number (not preferable)? I don't think this will happen, but I'd like to have a reasonable contingency plan in place anyway. Thanks for your continued patience. David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
