Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote: >> Florian Weimer wrote: #5 Declare GMP to be a system library. >>> (snip) >>> #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian has another viewpoint on OpenSSL I somehow doubt we would use it for

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: >>> #5 Declare GMP to be a system library. >>> >> (snip) >> >>> #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian >>> has another viewpoint on OpenSSL I somehow doubt we would use it for >>> GMP.

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:49:48 +0200 Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: [...] > I think that any package that is essential for the base OS > (aka Priority: required) should qualify for the system exception. Well, for the record, package libssl1.0.2 is Priority: important, hence, even with this

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > So, the best case situation (IMHO) would be that a lawyer tell us that > Apache 2.0 is also compatible with GPLv2-only, and that we stop playing > the game of being amateur lawyers instead of software developers. But that's not how the

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 29/03/17 15:58, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote: >>> Florian Weimer wrote: > #5 Declare GMP to be a system library. > (snip) > #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian > has another

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 29/03/17 19:37, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:49:48 +0200 Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > > [...] >> I think that any package that is essential for the base OS >> (aka Priority: required) should qualify for the system exception. > > Well, for the record, package

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes: > But in the worst case, it will be compatible with GPLv2+ and GPLv3. I am not sure I see this as the worst case situation. Or maybe you meant to write "incompatable"? -- Brian May

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 29/03/17 22:28, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:58:07PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >> So... does this means that we are actually *now* shipping OpenSSL with >> GPL software on the same DVD? > This is permitted, or are you joking? > > > Yes It was a

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 29/03/17 22:25, Brian May wrote: > Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes: > >> But in the worst case, it will be compatible with GPLv2+ and GPLv3. > > I am not sure I see this as the worst case situation. Or maybe you meant > to write "incompatable"? > No. Apache 2.0 is

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:49:04AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > However, I still don't understand why we don't just declare OpenSSL a > system library; or at least define a clear policy for when a package is > considered part of the base system (so the GPL system exception applies >

Re: freeness and compatibility of CeCILL-C licence

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0800, Drew Parsons wrote: > > If I'm reading that right, we can link it from BSD and LGPL > libraries. > Currently MUMPS is in Debian used by > > getfem++   LGPL > petsc  BSD-2 > which is used by dolfin  LGPL > trilinos   BSD > code-aster GPL2 > > So there

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04 > +0200: >> On 30/03/17 00:24, Philipp Kern wrote: >>> On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: So, the best case situation (IMHO) would be that a lawyer tell us

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL > program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program > to be used along with OpenSSL, when they where the ones implementing >

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 30/03/17 00:26, Josh Triplett wrote: > Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote: >>> Florian Weimer wrote: > #5 Declare GMP to be a system library. > (snip) > #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue.

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On 30/03/17 00:24, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >> So, the best case situation (IMHO) would be that a lawyer tell us that >> Apache 2.0 is also compatible with GPLv2-only, and that we stop playing >> the game of being amateur lawyers instead of