On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:28 PM Emmanuel Charpentier <emanuel.charpent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Erik, > > Le vendredi 9 novembre 2018 17:56:58 UTC+1, Erik Bray a écrit : >> >> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:38 PM Emmanuel Charpentier >> <emanuel.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Le vendredi 9 novembre 2018 13:40:12 UTC+1, Erik Bray a écrit : >> >> >> >> Can someone remind me again why SSL libs aren't provided by the system >> >> on macOS, and/or why those libs can't be used for building Python's >> >> ssl module? >> > >> > >> > From the current installation guide : >> > ===================== Begin quote ===================== >> > Some Sage components (and among them, most notably, Python) “use the >> > OpenSSL library for added performance if made available by the operating >> > system” (literal quote from the Python license). Testing has proved that : >> > >> > Sage can be successfully built against other SSL libraries (at least >> > GnuTLS). >> > Sage’s -pip facility (used to install some Sage packages) is disabled when >> > Sage is compiled against those libraries. >> > >> > Furthermore, the Sage license mention that the hashlib library (used in >> > Sage) uses OpenSSL. >> > >> > Therefore, the OpenSSL library is recommended. However, Sage’s license >> > seems to clash with OpenSSL license, which makes the distribution of >> > OpenSSL along with Sage sources dubious. >> >> I don't think that's true. OpenSSL is not distributed "along with >> Sage sources". At most, instructions for installing OpenSSL are. >> This goes for any dependency of Sage that has an SPKG. > > > Hummm... Hou may be right : the way it is expressed *may* lead an inattentive > reader to deduce that we ship OpenSSL. ISTR that I wrote this phrase ; what I > meant was "if we happened to ship OpenSSL, that would be dubious". I thought > that this was unambiguously a contrafactual ; your reaction proves that it is > not (possible gallicism...). > > How would you phrase that ?
I'm not really sure what you mean. But keep in mind there are two things: Sage the Python library and Sage-the-software-distribution. The former has some GPLv2/3 license or something or other for some reason. The latter I'm not sure. We confuse matters by maintaining both these things in the same code repository. I have long believed they should be separate, and I hope to fix that. But that's another issue. Then, what is licensed w.r.t. Sage-the-distribution? That would be the code for tools to download, unpack, and compile all the packages that make up Sage-the-distribution. There is no code from other software packages involved in that--it's just the code for obtaining their code, which we redistribute (on Sage's mirrors) under their original licenses, in a GPL-compatible manner. The OpenSSL is not "shipped" or "distributed" somehow in the Sage-the-distribution sources--only the means of obtaining it. We do distribute binary builds of all this software, and a binary for OpenSSL would be included along with binaries for other software. AFAIK this is not a problem--this is the same as any Linux distribution. The source code from which those binaries is built is, again, made available in a GPL-compatible manner. So I don't think there's anything really to discuss about licenses. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
