On 09-08-2004 14:33, "Matthew Garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope. The same argument actually applies - if netatalk is a derivative > of openssl (and if it's been coded against it, then the FSF would > probably claim that it is) then it's illegal to distribute it in any > form under the current license. Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl. It is a standalone package which (mainly) provides Apple Filesharing Protocol (AFP) support. It is very simular in functionality to Samba, if you're familiar with that. Netatalk CAN be linked against openssl, to provide password encryption. The current package in sarge (testing) is not linked against OpenSSL, so all passwords are sent in clear text over the line. Does this, in any way, according to you, change if netatalk, linked against OpenSSL is allowed to be distributed? I am aware of the statment made at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs stating, that, in some cases, you can just distribute the packages without making an exception to the GPL (which the provider is willing, but unable to make). However, I do not entirally understand what is being said there. I (and the current package maintainer) completely really on that "someone on debian-legel" says that "GPL software linked against OpenSSL is not allowed in the main archive without either a license exemption from the upstream author of the GPL package" source: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00173.html If this statement is incorrect, given the statement in the GPL-FAQ, please let me know immediately! Kind regards, Freek Dijkstra -- Never ask a man what kind of computer he owns. If it's a Mac, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?
