W.r.t http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-dev/201206/0075.html
I would like to expand on this - this is based on my reading of the license terms that are under debate by the Ubuntu tech board now, *not* on a desire for a particular outcome. As a Squid upstream I *hate* that Debian and Ubuntu don't ship SSL enabled binaries. The only issues I see are technical, legacy ones - I don't perceive a moral issue here given that OpenSSL is free software: It is very unlike the situation with a proprietary OS, and I wish that Squid *could* put an exception in place for OpenSSL. However, we have spotty contact with the union of all developers, and it would require considerable human bandwidth to get an exception in place - so far no-one has made the time to really get that happening. So - it is a violation to ship OpenSSL linked Squid IFF you agree that OpenSSL isn't a 'system library', and to date I have sided with the Debian interpretation of that. As a project however, Squid would like to see SSL enabled binaries shipping by default. I can guarantee that I wouldn't stand in the way of OpenSSL being determined to be a system library, though I can't make that statement for the set of all past contributors to Squid! However, any such postulated contributor that objects could have stated their grievances with Fedora/RHEL at any time in the past, so it would be very odd for them to turn up now and complain specifically to Ubuntu, were Ubuntu to start shipping SSL enabled binaries. Finally, it irks me that Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu have different answers for the 'is OpenSSL a system library' question. It makes it hard for folk writing software :(. HTH, -Rob -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
