Squid & openssl
kees at ubuntu.com
Thu May 2 22:09:09 UTC 2013
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:22:39AM +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
> W.r.t http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-dev/201206/0075.html
> I would like to expand on this - this is based on my reading of the
> license terms that are under debate by the Ubuntu tech board now,
> *not* on a desire for a particular outcome.
> As a Squid upstream I *hate* that Debian and Ubuntu don't ship SSL
> enabled binaries. The only issues I see are technical, legacy ones - I
> don't perceive a moral issue here given that OpenSSL is free software:
> It is very unlike the situation with a proprietary OS, and I wish that
> Squid *could* put an exception in place for OpenSSL.
> However, we have spotty contact with the union of all developers, and
> it would require considerable human bandwidth to get an exception in
> place - so far no-one has made the time to really get that happening.
How about "we are adding the following exception for linking against
OpenSSL: ... If anyone objects, please speak up by 2013-mm-dd."
And then things are fixed. :)
> So - it is a violation to ship OpenSSL linked Squid IFF you agree that
> OpenSSL isn't a 'system library', and to date I have sided with the
> Debian interpretation of that. As a project however, Squid would like
> to see SSL enabled binaries shipping by default. I can guarantee that
> I wouldn't stand in the way of OpenSSL being determined to be a system
> library, though I can't make that statement for the set of all past
> contributors to Squid! However, any such postulated contributor that
> objects could have stated their grievances with Fedora/RHEL at any
> time in the past, so it would be very odd for them to turn up now and
> complain specifically to Ubuntu, were Ubuntu to start shipping SSL
> enabled binaries.
> Finally, it irks me that Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu have different
> answers for the 'is OpenSSL a system library' question. It makes it
> hard for folk writing software :(.
I've personally never had a problem with the OpenSSL linking. It seems
a needlessly picky interpretation of the intent of these licenses.
More information about the technical-board