From: Lucas Nussbaum Date: 2010-03-19T00:01:39+09:00 Subject: Re: Recommended way to install Rubygems On 18/03/10 at 23:31 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Lucas Nussbaum > wrote: > > OpenSSL doesn't have a lot of fans, because of its licence that prevents > > it from being linked to GPL software. Yes, it could be possible to ship > > openssl.so and readline.so in the same package, but then it would be > > harder to argue that Debian does enough to protect the linking of > > readline (GPLv2) with openssl. The situation would be much simpler if > > Ruby switched to GNU TLS, for example. > > Your first sentence is incorrect; OpenSSL is both better known and > more widely used in the real world than GNU TLS is likely to ever be. > GNU TLS is preferred by people who have subscribed to the GNU > philosophy, which doesn't include everyone in the Ruby world, and > those of us who prefer OpenSSL see GNU TLS as a zany outlier created > by people who have nothing better to do with their time than to worry > about the attribution clause (I believe that's the part that makes GNU > software incompatible with OpenSSL licensing, since GNU believes that > attribution isn't necessary). > > That said, if someone were to make an SSL/TLS layer for Ruby that > could reasonably replace the OpenSSL namespace and that both "require > 'openssl'" and "require 'gnutls'" would satisfy, then I think we'd see > traction. Since this is apparently a problem for people who prefer GNU > TLS, I suggest that it is in their interest to do so. Note that your lawyer might disagree with you, whether he is a GNU fanboy or not, because it is widely agreed that the OpenSSL license is incompatible with the GPL. I agree that this sucks, but hey, that's life. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |