On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:56:39 +0800 Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
> Bradley Kuhn says that for GPLv2-only works Debian should not consider
> OpenSSL to be a system library but for works where the GPLv3 can
> apply, SSL/TLS is likely a "Standard Interface" and thus subject to
> the "System Library" excepti
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> But Fedora, whose policies Richard Fontana helped to shape over the
> years, considers OpenSSL to be a library covered by the system library
> exception.
We discussed this on #faif[1] and:
Richard Fontana says the OpenSSL-system library ex
On 23 Oct 2014 02:03, "Thorsten Glaser" wrote:
...
>
> > Where it is clear it is indeed a concern. Note that Fontana is both a
> > lawyer, and co-author of the GPLv3.
>
> And a RedHat employee.
Was :) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fontana
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:11:41AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> But Fedora, whose policies Richard Fontana helped to shape over the
> years, considers OpenSSL to be a library covered by the system library
> exception.
But legal advice is not necessarily portable. As a project, we can
certainly d
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> The problem is that Debian is the operating system distributing the system
> libraries, and that all packages Debian distributes are *also* part of that
> same operating system.
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00113.html
> https://people.gnome.
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 12:46 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On 23 October 2014 04:03, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's usually more immediately useful to just
> upload the package with an explanation of the issues in
> debian/copyright
> and see what the ftp-master team says.
>
On 23 October 2014 04:03, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's usually more immediately useful to just
> upload the package with an explanation of the issues in debian/copyright
> and see what the ftp-master team says.
>
This is probably getting off-track, however I have a package that has been
stuck in N
Excerpts from Michael Fladischer's message of 2014-10-21 08:58:32 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> I'm the maintainer for src:librabbitmq and the binary package
> librabbitmq1 is linked against libssl1.0.0 (OpenSSL).
>
> Now I was approached by Julien Kerihuel from the OpenChange project, who
> release their sof
Matthias Urlichs writes:
> Nevertheless, it is the forum where we-as-a-distribution are supposed to
> arrive at a rough consensus on what's OK, legally, and what is not, thus
> the discussion belongs there.
It's never been used that way for as long as I've been a project member.
Instead, it's a
On Oct 22, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > No, debian-legal is no body within Debian, just a random armchair
> > lawyer discussion list. But it may be Cc’d, sure.
> Nevertheless, it is the forum where we-as-a-distribution are supposed to
> arrive at a rough consensus on what's OK, legally, and what i
Hi,
Thorsten Glaser:
> Also, it’s normal that someone has a rosy sight on something they wrote.
>
> Note that the intent of the actual copyright owners counts
> *much* more than the intent of the licence writers when
> interpreting clauses.
>
Sure, but in many cases there is not much expression
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> The problem is that Debian is the operating system distributing the system
> libraries, and that all packages Debian distributes are *also* part of that
> same operating system.
Wrong: “*as long as*
your GPL binary is not shipped together
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Jelmer Vernooij dixit:
> >Samba is unlikely to add such an exception.
>
> So just make OpenSSL a system library finally.
It has always been a system library in Debian.
The problem is that Debian is the operating system distributing the system
librari
* Michael Fladischer:
> Considering this, is it a good idea to provide a librabbitmq1-nossl
> binary package that was built without OpenSSL while still having
> librabbitmq1 with OpenSSL-support?
We do not do this for Python, which links against OpenSSL, and which
is used from software under the
Jelmer Vernooij dixit:
>Samba is unlikely to add such an exception.
So just make OpenSSL a system library finally.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
(gnutls can also be used, but if you are compiling lynx for your own use,
there is no reason to consider using that package)
-- Thomas E. Dickey on the
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:41:27PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Why just not add a license exception as many other GPL projects do?
> Something like (copied from our Knot DNS d/copyright):
>
> In addition, as a special exception, the author of this program gives
> permission to link the code of
Why just not add a license exception as many other GPL projects do?
Something like (copied from our Knot DNS d/copyright):
In addition, as a special exception, the author of this program gives
permission to link the code of its release with the OpenSSL project's
"OpenSSL" library (or with modi
Hi,
I'm the maintainer for src:librabbitmq and the binary package
librabbitmq1 is linked against libssl1.0.0 (OpenSSL).
Now I was approached by Julien Kerihuel from the OpenChange project, who
release their software under the terms of GPL-3, asking if I could
provide an alternative to the OpenSSL
18 matches
Mail list logo
