Openssl: built-in or ports?

[Anders F Björklund]

Ryan Schmidt wrote:

>> Using the MacPorts version of OpenSSL has a licensing problem with
>> GPL ports, though... When distributing package binaries, that is.
>
> Oh. Good. Grief.
>
> So when we get going on binaries, we're going to have to provide  
> portfile syntax to indicate whether we may distribute binaries of  
> the built thing?
>
> Sheesh.

It might even need two flags, one for the distfiles and one for the  
binaries...

Then again, the default should probably be "yes we can" and the  
others override.

> [...]
> It says "the GPL does not place restrictions on using libraries  
> that are part of the normal operating system distribution". OpenSSL  
> is part of the normal Mac OS X distribution. It says "Some GPL  
> software copyright holders claim that you infringe on their rights  
> if you use OpenSSL with their software on operating systems that  
> don't normally include OpenSSL." Mac OS X does normally include  
> OpenSSL, so I don't see any problem here. But, I'm not a lawyer.
>
>
> The situation might be different for people who use MacPorts on  
> other operating systems that don't come with OpenSSL. Not sure what  
> that OS would be. But  I have no plans to provide binaries for  
> anything other than Mac OS X.

I do think that part applies when you actually link with the system  
version...

The annoying part is when the system openssl lack new features, such  
as SHA256.

--anders