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 #45 from Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-11 04:00:08 EDT --- > "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" library that contains nothing but empty function declarations and you license it under GPL and you build Links against it ... and then the user takes the Links binary built this way and loads it into memory with real OpenSSL --- is it license violation or not and who is doing the violation? > "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? 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? I managed to build Links against gnutls, but I'm getting runtime SSL errors. It needs some more debugging. -- 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