Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> writes: > On 21 March 2010 06:59, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>> Applications that use NSS/PAM, and individual NSS/PAM modules, are >> useful without the other and it is a matter of user configuration >> whether they are used together at all. The OpenLDAP modules are not >> used by default. So I don't see that copyleft licences of applications >> using NSS/PAM can possibly extend to them. > Yes, that is my understanding of how Debian has made decisions too. I > should be able to dig up references if required. > Also I do note that there are a number of PAM modules currently in the > Debian archive that do link against openssl. Not to mention > applications that use both PAM and openssl - there are GPLed PAM > modules in our archive too. I hope I haven't started a witch hunt... No, I suspect I was just completely wrong. Thank you for the corrections, all! -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zl22mn9u....@windlord.stanford.edu
