[rtmpdump] Link OpenSSL statically for Win32
my.my.cro at gmail.com
Mon Apr 19 15:14:52 CEST 2010
On 19/04/2010 10:29 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 22:21 +0930, Stef wrote:
>> On 19/04/2010 8:53 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 20:15 +0930, Stef wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, "hashswf.c" and "rtmp.c" in the "librtmp" use the
>>>> OpenSSL stuff too, don't they? So that puts a damper on anything
>>>> using the librtmp library as well unless it's built to use the dynamic
>>> Those files are licensed under LGPL, not GPL. So there is no problem
>>> with linking to OpenSSL.
>>> But still, as I said, they can be built to use GnuTLS instead of
>>> OpenSSL. And then _even_ the GPL-licensed tools like rtmpdump can be
>>> statically linked quite happily.
>> Howard should put a note in the README/COPYING pointing out the issue
>> with distributing Windows (Mac too?) versions of rtmpdump and
>> static-built OpenSSL. E.g: It can only be re-distributed as long as the
>> executable is built to use the OpenSSL dynamic-link-libs (personal use
>> is fine with static-built OpenSSL) or GnuTLS (static or dynamic).
> That might be wise. Would you care to suggest that again, in 'diff -up'
OK. I'll get to it later tomorrow (time for bed here) unless Howard
wants to do it. ;)
> Either that or drop OpenSSL entirely and just use GnuTLS exclusively.
> There are people who will still want to use OpenSSL for their local
> builds. Didn't somebody say only last night that it was easier to build
> OpenSSL on Windows than it is to build GnuTLS?
> (Although if we can ship fully-functional binaries for the majority of
> Windows users, perhaps that becomes less of an issue?)
Yes, it is easier to build OpenSSL on Windows than GnuTLS when using MS
Visual Studio. However, I'd rather supply the fully-functional binaries
too. Issues can be better dealt with when the binary is a known
quantity (or quality).
More information about the rtmpdump