Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-01 16:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > Well, I still can't see why I should depend on gnutls when openssl is available > per default. As from my understanding a bitlbee binary linking to openssl is not > more or less probably illegal rather a wget binary linking to openssl (there are > many examples more, just try a rpm -e --test openssl). Also said, bitlbee and > wget are both licensed under GNU GPL and I absolutely can't see any difference > between them. Or did Red Hat do some probably illegal things for Fedora Core? GPL software linking against OpenSSL should include an exception in the license to allow this. For instance, the wget README file, it says: In addition, as a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives permission to link the code of its release of Wget with the OpenSSL project's "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it that use the same license as the "OpenSSL" library), and distribute the linked executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than "OpenSSL". If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review