Better proxy support available via libcurl?
ludwig at Fh-Worms.de
Fri Aug 4 11:36:38 CEST 2006
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 04:51:19PM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:17, David Shaw said:
> > That's not the case though - they were designed intentionally to be
> > able to run outside of GPG for general keyserver access. That's one
> They are part of GnuPG proper. They are external helpers to isolate
> network access from the actual encryption process. Russell Coker
> asked me right after he started to work on SELinux for such a feature.
> > gpgkeys_* is not a derivative work of GPG. We could easily make
> Right, they are even part of GnuPG.
> > gpgkeys_* a whole new package if necessary. Just like GnuPG 1.9 is
> > made up of a bunch of smaller packages, the keyserver helpers could be
> This would most likely be viewed as an artificial split to work around
> the terms of the GPL. This is based onlong in-person discussions with
> FSF staff members on whether this is valid way to not comply with the
Sorry to intrude - are there any online resources that summarize these
discussions? And that give some guidelines what does (according to the FSF)
constitute an effective "license barrier" between two applications. (As soon
as they communicate over the network? As soon as they communicate over a
standard protocoll like http? ...)
Depending on the answer, a project I am with may be forced not to use the
GPL for its own software (and consequently to stay clear from any GPL'ed
software). Till now we assumed (too naively, perhaps) that we avoid any
conflict if we do not actually link (with ld or one of its compiler frontends)
against non-GPL code.
FH Worms - University of Applied Sciences
Fachbereich Informatik / Telekommunikation
Erenburgerstr. 19, 67549 Worms, Germany
More information about the Gnupg-devel