On 2004-09-04 15:42:00 +0100 Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO, this is a clear sign that an OpenSSL-compatible library should be
> considered part of the operating system.
Any new reasoning for that, or just restating in the hope it will become true?
--
MJR/slefMy Opinion Onl
Date index for period starts at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/mail2.html#00615
Threads with more than 4 posts:
Suggestions of David Nusinow, over 60 posts this week to 27 Aug,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/mail2.html#00617
NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream,
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 01:55:33PM -0700, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> Greetings Debian-legal, (I've just started subscribing to this list.)
>
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:42:21 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 04:56:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> > > If
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:40:49 + (UTC) Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> Hello,
> This was about the recent change of license in a36 that was widely
> covered in the news, e.g. lwn or heise.de
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/006193.html
>
> We (cdrools Debian maintainers) were in ind
Greetings Debian-legal, (I've just started subscribing to this list.)
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:42:21 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 04:56:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> > If we follow this interpretation, this means that you can't distribute
> > an clos
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 04:56:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > What's in a normal Debian install doesn't matter, because it all gets
> > distributed together on mirrors and in cd-packs. There's a very
> > specific phrase used to keep MS
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 04:42:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> curl-ssl might even be GPL-free if distributed with GnuTLS' OpenSSL-
> emulation.
> IMO, this is a clear sign that an OpenSSL-compatible library should be
> considered part of the operating system.
Huh? Whether such a library is "
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> What's in a normal Debian install doesn't matter, because it all gets
>> distributed together on mirrors and in cd-packs. There's a very
>> specific phrase used to keep MS and Sun from shipping E
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:26:51 + (UTC), Faheem Mitha
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The pyMPI (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pympi/) license says the
> following. I think this is non-free under the DFSG, but I would like a
> confirmation. I think that the non-commercial clause by itself
>
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> What's in a normal Debian install doesn't matter, because it all gets
> distributed together on mirrors and in cd-packs. There's a very
> specific phrase used to keep MS and Sun from shipping Emacs with their
> proprietary libc: "unless tha
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> So, if we were to compile it against a curl-nossl, that'd be fine. But
> if we then distribute with curl-ssl, that suddenly changes things?
curl-ssl might even be GPL-free if distributed with GnuTLS' OpenSSL-
emulation.
IMO, this is a clear
* Andrew Suffield:
>> Probably distribution. If you distribute just the OpenSSL of curl
>> version, it's rather clear that you intent that all applications
>> linking against curl also link against OpenSSL.
>
> And if you distribute both?
If the OpenSSL version is not marked as the default one (
* Anthony DeRobertis:
>> Probably distribution. If you distribute just the OpenSSL of curl
>> version, it's rather clear that you intent that all applications
>> linking against curl also link against OpenSSL.
>
> So, if we were to compile it against a curl-nossl, that'd be fine. But
> if we the
[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B!!7P:QJ88K%a%k%^%,C4Ev!'LpBt(B
$B!!l9g$O$=$N;]$r!!(Bhttp://gogoway.orgdns.org/melmaga/teishi.html$B$^$G(B
$B%a!<%k%^%,%8%s9-9p?=$79~$_$O!"$=$N;]$r!!(Bhttp://go
14 matches
Mail list logo
