Re: [Pan-devel] Seeking advice on Pan license issue with optional TLS component
Am 23.03.2013 15:47, schrieb Dominique Dumont: Hello Heinrich Le Saturday 16 February 2013 14:52:15, Heinrich Müller a écrit : Thanks for the info, i think i'll switch over to using PolarSSL which is GPLv2 This switch is no longer required: Gnutls 3.1.10 now has LGPLv2.1+ again. http://lists.gnutls.org/pipermail/gnutls-devel/2013-March/006202.html Thanks to Kalle Olavi Niemitalo for the heads up. All the best Dominique ___ Pan-devel mailing list Pan-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-devel That's great. I'll bump the version requirements in the next commit. Cheers. ___ Pan-devel mailing list Pan-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-devel
Re: [Pan-devel] Seeking advice on Pan license issue with optional TLS component
Hello Heinrich Le Saturday 16 February 2013 14:52:15, Heinrich Müller a écrit : > Thanks for the info, i think i'll switch over to using PolarSSL which is > GPLv2 This switch is no longer required: Gnutls 3.1.10 now has LGPLv2.1+ again. http://lists.gnutls.org/pipermail/gnutls-devel/2013-March/006202.html Thanks to Kalle Olavi Niemitalo for the heads up. All the best Dominique signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Pan-devel mailing list Pan-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-devel
Re: [Pan-devel] Seeking advice on Pan license issue with optional TLS component
Hello Le samedi 16 février 2013 14:52:15, Heinrich Müller a écrit : > Thanks for the info, i think i'll switch over to using PolarSSL which is > GPLv2 I got some interesting info from Kalle: It looks like the license of GNUTLS 3.1.x may eventually be changed from LGPLv3+ back to LGPLv2.1+. If that succeeds, I believe it would solve the incompatibility with Pan. http://lists.gnutls.org/pipermail/gnutls-devel/2013-February/006086.html Alternatively, the SSL support could be rewritten to use the NSS library from Mozilla; that one remains GPLv2-compatible. I don't know yet how different its API is. Hope this helps Dominique signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Pan-devel mailing list Pan-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-devel
Re: [Pan-devel] Seeking advice on Pan license issue with optional TLS component
Am 16.02.2013 09:55, schrieb Dominique Dumont: Le mardi 12 février 2013 14:26:18, Dominique Dumont a écrit : Since this is the first time I'm dealing with a trciky licensing issue, I'd like some folks from debian-legal mailing list to confirm my opinion. As mentioned here [1], my proposal is a bad idea. GPL license is transitive. Since any change you might do upstream to fix this situation will be too late or too intrusive to be accepted for next Debian release (which is currently in deep freeze), I have no choice but to remove SSL support from Pan in Debian Wheezy. I'll put back SSL support for Pan in Debian unstable once the problematic code is relicensed or re-written. Dominique Thanks for the info, i think i'll switch over to using PolarSSL which is GPLv2 Cheers ___ Pan-devel mailing list Pan-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-devel
Re: [Pan-devel] Seeking advice on Pan license issue with optional TLS component
Le mardi 12 février 2013 14:26:18, Dominique Dumont a écrit : > Since this is the first time I'm dealing with a trciky licensing issue, > I'd like some folks from debian-legal mailing list to confirm my opinion. As mentioned here [1], my proposal is a bad idea. GPL license is transitive. Since any change you might do upstream to fix this situation will be too late or too intrusive to be accepted for next Debian release (which is currently in deep freeze), I have no choice but to remove SSL support from Pan in Debian Wheezy. I'll put back SSL support for Pan in Debian unstable once the problematic code is relicensed or re-written. Dominique [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=22;att=0;bug=699892 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Pan-devel mailing list Pan-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-devel
[Pan-devel] Seeking advice on Pan license issue with optional TLS component
Hello Here's a summary of the issue for debian-legal folks. Pan package on Debian got bug #699892 because Pan GPLv2 only is linked with gnutls LGPLv3, which is not permitted by FSF. Pan folks are willing to re-license Pan to GPLv2 and later. But getting copyright owner authorisation for all software components copied into Pan is a big problem: there's no obvious contact for some of these components. Reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation, I think we may not need to re-license all components of pan code. Pan is made of several part. Some parts like uulib or e-*-dialog.c are integrated in Pan by source code copy. Other parts like gnutls are integrated with dynamic linking (optionaly). To respect the license terms, I think we need to check the compatibility between parts when the parts are actually working together (i.e. some data is exchanged directly between these 2 components). I.e. we need to check that: - Pan license is compatible with gnutls license - Pan license is compatible with e-*-dialog.c (and others) but we don't need to ensure that e-*dialog.c license is compatible with gnutls license because these 2 parts work independently (well, I think so, you Pan guys should be able to confirm easily). If I'm right, Pan maintainers only need to re-license Pan parts. Since this is the first time I'm dealing with a trciky licensing issue, I'd like some folks from debian-legal mailing list to confirm my opinion. The bugs tracking this issue are http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699892 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=693272 All the best -- https://github.com/dod38fr/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -o- irc: dod at irc.debian.org ___ Pan-devel mailing list Pan-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-devel
