Michael K. Edwards wrote:
You might also observe the comments at
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing
OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets on
for a derivative work
when it suits them, and then to accept the copying of the OpenSSL API
into the GPL'ed yaSSL and the GPL'ed shim to GNU TLS, and then
recommend these alternatives over OpenSSL to all GPL licensors, is
beyond hypocritical.
As regards MySQL, here are some comments by one Tim Smith
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an
anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to
his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments
at
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoops, I misattributed that message. It's Brett Glass who wrote
that, NOT Theo de Raadt. :-(
And after Googling Brett Glass briefly, I doubt he has much concrete
evidence to back up his claim that RMS
Hi everyone,
On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a
new library in the next version. This library, ruby-zoom, is an LGPL Ruby
binding of libyaz. libyaz links to OpenSSL and is, as far as I can tell,
under a
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Do you know whether the NSS implementation is being certified at
source code level (a very unusual arrangement) using the sort of
maneuvers mentioned in the Linux Journal article on DMLSS?
I'm not able to say - it's not my area. If you are interested,
De: Steve Langasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The phrase For an executable work, complete source code means all
the source code for all modules it contains appears in the text
of GPL section *3*, which is not specific to works based on the
Program. Such lack of attention to license detail from
You might also observe the comments at
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing
OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets on whether there was a
quid pro
On 6/6/05, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The implementation of SSL in the Netscape NSS libraries is available
under the GPL, and I believe certain versions of it have FIPS validation.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/fips/
I'm delighted to hear that. It does not
On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an
anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to
his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments
at
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
since the OpenSSL shim for GNU TLS was added to the GPL (not LGPL)
libgnutls-extra. (It's possible that it has since been moved into the
LGPL portion, but I don't think so.)
The LGPL contains an explicit provision that allows relicensing
to GPL (section 3 LGPL).
[Cc:ing the original poster, who posted to -mentors -- there's no reason to
expect that he's subscribed to -legal]
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:04:13AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend
Hi legal friends
#167747: proftpd-mysql: links against OpenSSL and GPL licensed libmysqlclient10
This is a RC error. IMHO libmysqlclient10 is LGPL, so this is a
pointless error. Anyway, would you comment?
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:36:21AM +, Paul Martin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 04:33:22PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[Bugreport: proftpd-mysql linksed with GPLed libmysqlclient10 and OpenSSL]
If I find time I'll try to find somebody to write a nice letter (or
correct one I'd write) to
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:05:21PM +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
4.11.2002 pisze Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL's license, because the advertising
clause in OpenSSL's license would add an additional restriction on
the GPL licensed software.
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 08:45, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Actually it is not that simple, libmysql/* is LGPL but mysqld_error.h
which is included by net.c is GPL.
That's silly. It's most likely an error. Can MySQL AB clarify it for
us?
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
The current generation of BSD system libraries are all licensed in a
GPL-compatible manner (BSD license w/o advertising clause). So this is
not a problem unless they try to link gcc against something that has not=20
had the licensing clause removed, such
Scripsit Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
your GPL binary is not shipped together
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
your GPL binary is
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
And those are really all the requirements that the LGPL imposes on
source code that is linked to the library to form an executable, but is
not part of the library itself -- i.e., not much. It certainly doesn't
require that they
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:43:17PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
And those are really all the requirements that the LGPL imposes on
source code that is linked to the library to form an executable, but is
not part of the library
Jeff Licquia wrote:
To clarify Steve's otherwise excellent reply: recent gnutls ships with
an OpenSSL compatibility library. The libraries are LGPL, so there
should be no problem with compatibility.
I haven't tried it yet, but I intend to with CUPS. I'd recommend you
give it a try.
It's
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
against GPL-incompatible
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 12:38:10AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants
Hello,
after I have received a Reject from FTP Masters on the cadaver package,
because it is GPL and linked against openssl, I opened up the Bug #163583 and
contacted upstream.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=nobug=163583
Here is the answer from Joe Orton, which basically
that the second is slightly more feasible. :)
Since Debian adopted its current hardline position on the GPL+OpenSSL
licensing issue, I've noticed a dramatic decrease in the number of
things OpenSSL can do that cannot also be done with GPL- or
LGPL-compatible libraries, and I've also discovered
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 19:28, Steve Langasek wrote:
So the options are that you could secure a clarification of the GPL's OS
exemption from the FSF, in the form of a new revision of the GPL, that
permits what you're asking; or you can find a way to replace OpenSSL in
the build with a library
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 09:45:32AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
Thanks for everyones responses.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 11:09:21AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is OK to create GPL binaries linked against OpenSSL and compiled
for Debian platforms, and distribute them outside of Debian. But
On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 19:44, Brian May wrote:
However, I am a bit puzzled; does that mean:
- It is OK to distribute these programs if they are seperate from
Debian?
- It is OK to distribute a close source package that uses GPL packages
from Debian?
No to both, but see below.
My feeling
to distribute the Heimdal
libraries (Y) /without/ linking them against OpenSSL, and link GPL
programs (X) against that, and distribute them together, then you're ok.
You can even provide Heimdal libs that /are/ linked against OpenSSL, as
an alternative; but if the packages you ship default to using
, the violation comes specifically from distributing
binaries of GPLed programs without distributing all the dependent
libraries under the same terms. If you want to distribute the Heimdal
libraries (Y) /without/ linking them against OpenSSL, and link GPL
programs (X) against that, and distribute them
Hello,
I am still a bit confused as to the problems with
linking GPL code with OPENSSL. I don't intend to start
any flame wars...
Please send CCs to me. Thanks.
If there is somewhere I can find this information, URLs
would be appreciated.
1. What is the problem? I have read the GPL, and cannot
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 04:15:09PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
1. What is the problem? I have read the GPL, and cannot recall the
problem. According to the top of /usr/doc/openssl/copyright,
openssl has a dual BSD style license. I haven't heard of problems
linking GPL code with BSD code before. So
David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 04:15:09PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
2. Is URL:http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL wrong? ie.
the GPL does not place restrictions on using libraries that are part of
the normal operating system distribution.
Yes, it does state that.
On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 02:15, Brian May wrote:
I normally like the GPL, but I find it a bit irratating that I can't
take some GPL program, and link it against Heimdal (which happens to
be linked against OpenSSL), without express permission from all the
copyright holders of the GPL software. In
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 04:15:09PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
I normally like the GPL, but I find it a bit irratating that I can't
take some GPL program, and link it against Heimdal (which happens to
be linked against OpenSSL), without express permission from all the
copyright holders of the GPL
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 04:15:09PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
Hello,
I am still a bit confused as to the problems with
linking GPL code with OPENSSL. I don't intend to start
any flame wars...
Please send CCs to me. Thanks.
If there is somewhere I can find this information, URLs
would
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 04:24:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
There have always been problems linking GPL code with BSD code, so long
as the GPL has existed. Only code licensed under the new,
recently revised BSD license can be linked with GPL code. OpenSSL
doesn't use such a new-style
38 matches
Mail list logo
