Just for your information:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504595
I'm going to add the patch from Debian to resolve this issue.
Rich.
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Just for your information:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504595
I'm going to add the patch from Debian to resolve this issue.
Haven't we considered OpenSSL as a core part of the OS and not worried about linking to it without any special exceptions by the GPL'd code?
If not, there are a good many more program that will need patched.
On 06/09/2009 08:31 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Haven't we considered OpenSSL as a core part of the OS and not worried about linking to it without any special exceptions by the GPL'd code?
If not, there are a good many more program that will need patched.
Yes, this is accurate. That said, if the maintainer wants to apply a patch, I won't tell them they can't do it.
~spot
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 08:50:49AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 06/09/2009 08:31 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Haven't we considered OpenSSL as a core part of the OS and not worried about linking to it without any special exceptions by the GPL'd code?
If not, there are a good many more program that will need patched.
Yes, this is accurate. That said, if the maintainer wants to apply a patch, I won't tell them they can't do it.
Well, I've applied Debian's patch now anyway ...
Rich.
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Well, I've applied Debian's patch now anyway ...
So if the legal winds should shift, you'll be covered. :)
Just out of curiousity, do you know if anyone asked chntpw upstream if they'd add a OpenSSL exception to the license? I know GnuPG (at least the 1.4 branch) did so a while back.
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:11:41AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Well, I've applied Debian's patch now anyway ...
So if the legal winds should shift, you'll be covered. :)
Just out of curiousity, do you know if anyone asked chntpw upstream if they'd add a OpenSSL exception to the license? I know GnuPG (at least the 1.4 branch) did so a while back.
I'm wholly confused by what the licensing problem is, but according to the original bugzilla report Debian have asked one of the upstreams (chntpw or openssl?) for an exception and it has been turned down:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504595
I sent a bunch of patches to upstream chntpw yesterday[1], which is what prompted this whole affair (I also sent the patches to the Debian maintainer who promptly filed the above bug). I've not heard anything back at the moment about those patches.
It's reported that upstream chntpw may be dead. Unfortunate as it's the only game in town if you want to decode Windows registry files using free software ...
Rich.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504580
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I'm wholly confused by what the licensing problem is, but according to the original bugzilla report Debian have asked one of the upstreams (chntpw or openssl?) for an exception and it has been turned down:
Ahh, indeed it is stated there that they asked upstream. Sorry for not having my eyes open. Thanks for the summary and effort!
-
Richard W.M. Jones -
Todd Zullinger -
Tom Callaway