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 #46 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> 2009-04-11 04:18:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #45) > > "it's equivalent to static linking once it was done at build time (as > > opposed to say, browser plugins)." > > And what if you create "dummy-openssl" [... blah blah blah blah...] Did I say I am a lawyer? What makes you believe the court decisions always have sane technical basis and this report is here to discuss your licensing worries? > > "IANAL, and I may be completly wrong and I reserve the right to > > "parrot" the decision of the lawyers" > > --- and where is the real "unparrotted" analysis? Would not fedora-legal-list be more suitable for this kind of question? I'm simply following the licensing guidelines? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > I tried to install NSS --- it doesn't contain any general openssl functions, > such as SSL_read, in /usr/include/nss. Am I doing something wrong ... do I need > some other package? Which? Have you bothered looking at the BuildRequires? Or at least reading my comments? You need nss_compat_ossl. -- 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