openssl vs. libressl

[woods.w at gmail.com]

I don’t believe a “better license” should be the dictating factor, I believe what should dictate what is included is what has better functionality. This is politics, and TBH is not a technical reason for inclusion or exclusion. TBH, I believe the only dictating factor should be technical, what does the job best, period. Everything else is ancillary. Something could have a much better license and be total crap.

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Bradley Giesbrecht <pixilla at macports.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:15 AM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com <mailto:rjvbertin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> - when a user made the opposite choice (say libressl instead of openssl), doing `port install curl` (for example) will translate to `port install curl +libressl` which means s/he won't benefit of binary packages for curl when curl has not expressed a preference for libressl.
> 
> I believe most openssl dependent ports are not binary distributable due to the openssl license.
> 
> If libressl has a better license this would be a good reason to make it the default ssl and openssl the alternative.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users at lists.macosforge.org
> https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20151111/0a1111f7/attachment.html>