Ian Zimmerman wrote: > mutt is GPL. Apparently there is some license incompatibility between > GPL and the openssl license which prohibits linking mutt with openssl, > unless there is an exception for this specific situation.
Here is a nice summary of the issues: https://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html > I have not studied the legalities in detail because IANAL, but I see > that there is a configure option to link with openssl. Has an > appropriate exception been granted to mutt, then? I don't see an exception in the mutt license. http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-1.html#ss1.6 > Of course I know that it doesn't matter if I build binaries just for my > personal use and don't distribute them, but in fact I build debian > packages which are available over unauthenticated http, because I want a > quick way of installing mutt (and other things) on multiple computers. > I am just trying to stay out of trouble :) > > I would like to avoid gnutls because of associated versioning chaos. Debian's mutt packaging links against gnutls. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
