Re: Balsa OpenSSL problems worse than I expected.

[Brian Stafford <brian stafford uklinux net>]

On Mon 10:10, 16 December 2002 Andrew Lau wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:12:00AM +0000, Brian Stafford wrote:
> 
> >  LibESMTP can be configured not to link against OpenSSL with minimal
> > loss of functionality so this, at least, should not be an issue.
> ...
> > OpenLDAP can also be configured not to use OpenSSL.  Just add
> > --with-tls=no when configuring.
> 
> I'll file a request for SSL disabled versions of these packages with
> their maintainers as a last resort if you guys aren't willing to
> obtain an exclusion clause. For now, I'll have await findings from
> debian-legal.

Apart from occasional code contributions to balsa, I have nothing to do with 
this project.  I am not prepared to issue legal statements to each and every 
party that wants to link with my code on the offchance that it has been built 
by a third party who has, beyond my control, enabled support for openssl.  
(Unless I charged, say, £500+VAT a time and passed on my solicitor's fees ... 
could be a nice little earner.)

> > There is no need to do this.  Have a look at the libesmtp package in
> > Debian.
> 
> netsnipe@espresso:~% apt-cache show libesmtp5 | grep Depends:
> Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libssl0.9.6

Nowt to do with me, I distribute only tarballs and have nothing to do with the 
maintenance of the debian package of libesmtp.  Contact the libESMTP package 
maintainer.  I assume he has already resolved these issues if the distributed 
libesmtp package links against openssl.  If not, debian-legal must be 
contradicting itself.  I would suggest that if you cannot resolve the issue, 
you build balsa linked against a static libESMTP library built with 
"./configure --with-openssl=no" and take a similar approach with openldap.

I am not prepared to be drawn into making legal guarantees necessitated by the 
actions of third parties who are beyond my control.

Brian