Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703 --- Comment #43 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> 2009-04-11 02:48:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #38) > (In reply to comment #35) > > Matej: Though this is mostly a pre-nss-patch relic (current version of the nss > > patch would not look for OpenSSL once NSS compat library is present) > -- when I remove it and rebuild package, resulting package doesn't require > openssl anyway: If you bothered to read the above, I'm sure you would understand you are just re-stating what was already said. > > Seriously, if you believe this is a review blocker, please re-read the > > guidelines and elaborate on what use of BuildConflicts seems legitimate to you. > > I have no clue what BuildConflicts is good for, and I have never seen it to be > used before, but this is certainly not the case (see above). Thank you for answering the review blocker part. Now that we're clear, could you please return the review flag back? I'm not going to reroll the package at this point, and am going to remove the BuildConflict upon import. > > > Also, thank you for bringing this up once the review was finished, even though > > this was present in the SPEC file since my first revision. > > I don't think there is any duty to be silent when I see stupidity in a package > which is soon to come to Fedora -- I haven't thought it is necessary to review > this package because I believed that ovasik will do proper job on it as usually > he does. Only when I tried to rebuild this package on my computer I got hit by > this, and so I jumped here before the damage would be hard to fix. You're completely right, there's no other term that would describe one extra BuildConflict better than "unfixable damage". I think your colleague will also be glad that to hear that you saved the mankind from unfixable damage caused by his improper review he wasted time on. (In reply to comment #41) > > # Incompatible with GPL > > BuildConflicts: openssl-devel > > Could anyone please explain, why so you think that it is illegal to dynamically > link GPL and NON-GPL code? > > My point of view: If you believe this is the right place to troll about this (ever heard about the fedora-legal-list?), here you go: I believe that whether dynamic linking is creating derivative works was never tried in court and general consensus is that it's equivalent to static linking once it was done at build time (as opposed to say, browser plugins). Therefore links codebase linked with openssl is derivative work of the gpl and openssl license adds the advertisement clause which makes the license of the resulting product incompatible with GPL and thus is not allowed. IANAL, and I may be completly wrong and I reserve the right to "parrot" the decision of the lawyers instead of imposing my own uninformed decisions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review