On 2/11/12 10:54 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 02/11/12 02:57 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/11/12 8:52 AM, Jonathan wrote:
What is the policy on system dependencies?
Here is the situation. The latest flask-notebook contains support for
OpenSSL. In order to compile properly it needs access to both the
openssl and openssl-dev packages. At least on my Ubuntu system the
openssl package is standard, but openssl-dev is not. When the flask-
notebook is incorporated, do we need to add the openssl package to the
compilation dependencies in the Sage readme, or does the flask
notebook spkg need to include or build those dependencies?
My understanding is that the flask notebook cannot include the openssl
headers because of licensing incompatibilities.
So I'd support adding openssl-dev as a requirement of Sage. What systems
does it come default on? I don't recall having a problem on OSX, for
example.
Jason
Does that get around the licensing issues? I'm not convinced it does
myself.
I thought we came to a conclusion about this (that it was not okay to
ship, but was okay to use), but maybe not.
If it's a problem to use OpenSSL (as compared to shipping OpenSSL), then
I guess here are a few options:
1. Get sagenb relicensed BSD (which may require work to rewrite mitel's
contributions, since we can't seem to contact him for relicensing
permission). Would this solve the issue?
2. Figure out some way to use openssl alternatives. This might be
harder, since twisted depends on openssl, for example, and python
Here is (yet another) page on this:
http://lwn.net/Articles/428111/
If you make it a requirement to use non-GPL code, which is not part of
the core of the operating system to run Sage, then I don't see how Sage
can be considered GPL any more.
What do you do if a system has the OpenSSL libraries, but they are too
old? Or if it has the libraries, but not the development headers?
Someone has already said the development headers don't come with Ubuntu.
Perhaps you can argue you don't actually link to the headers, so that is
ok. All seems a bit doggy to me.
I believe the license of Sage is very dubious at best, even in it's
current state. Unfortunately, the huge number of different "open source"
licenses seems to make this almost inevitable.
Has anyone ever tried getting the OpenSSL developers to release OpenSSL
under a GPL license, or perhaps dual license it, giving anyone the
choice to use whatever license they want.
From the above page:
aiui [as I understand it], the problem here is actually a former OpenSSL
hacker who has no interest (and, in fact, a positive interest against)
in changing the OpenSSL licensing. Most of the current OpenSSL hackers
don't have an issue with the change (again, aiui).
Would you consider Sage GPL if it needed to link to libraries written by
Wolfram Research for Mathematica?
Dave
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
