Re: License concerns regarding package lft

2007-06-07 Thread MJ Ray
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] A court is going to consider what the apparent intent was -- not try to stretch the meaning beyond the obvious. Intent is not written on the paper. It seemed obvious to me that this clause hinders binaries. It seemed obvious to Florian Weimer that it

Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread John Goerzen
Hi legal folks, Kern Sibbald, author of Bacula, contacted me today regarding its license. Some years ago, Jose Luis Tallon -- then the maintainer of Bacula -- asked Kern to add a clause to the Bacula license that would explicitly permit linking with OpenSSL. Kern did. Kern also subsequently

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread Michael Poole
John Goerzen writes: Kern approached me about this situation (see full correspondence below, forwarded with his permission). He added that Bacula does not statically link with OpenSSL, that OpenSSL support can be disabled at build time, and that FSFE does not believe that an exception clause

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread Walter Landry
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that FSFE agrees. I just read the contents of /usr/share/doc/bacula-director-sqlite/copyright I have reproduced it

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread John Goerzen
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that FSFE agrees. I just read the contents of

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

2007-06-07 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines fee as something involving the

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

2007-06-07 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified England and Wales, I'd probably have a very nice holiday at the copyright holder's expense

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

2007-06-07 Thread Michael Poole
Anthony W. Youngman writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified England and Wales, I'd probably have a very nice holiday at

Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences

2007-06-07 Thread Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) are probably covered under Fair Use. [...] This is England calling. Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread John Goerzen
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:17:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: GnuTLS + libgcrypt + libtasn1 implements everything unless you need ECC. And why does FSFE disagree with our interpretation? Michael Poole gave a good answer. He didn't address the FSFE -- where are they taking a different

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Thursday 07 June 2007 19:00, Michael Poole wrote: John Goerzen writes: Kern approached me about this situation (see full correspondence below, forwarded with his permission). He added that Bacula does not statically link with OpenSSL, that OpenSSL support can be disabled at build

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

2007-06-07 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Anthony W. Youngman writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Thursday 07 June 2007 19:50, Walter Landry wrote: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that FSFE agrees. I just read the contents of

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread Michael Poole
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:17:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: GnuTLS + libgcrypt + libtasn1 implements everything unless you need ECC. And why does FSFE disagree with our interpretation? Michael Poole gave a good answer. He didn't address the

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Thursday 07 June 2007 20:15, John Goerzen wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Thursday 07 June 2007 23:51, John Goerzen wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:17:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: GnuTLS + libgcrypt + libtasn1 implements everything unless you need ECC. And why does FSFE disagree with our interpretation? Michael Poole gave a good answer. He

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread Michael Poole
Kern Sibbald writes: On Thursday 07 June 2007 19:00, Michael Poole wrote: Debian generally distributes OpenSSL logically near the packages that dynamically link against it, so the major system component option is not available to Debian (... unless that component itself accompanies the

Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences

2007-06-07 Thread Michael Poole
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso writes: On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) are probably covered under Fair Use. [...] This is England calling. Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the UK?

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it

Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences

2007-06-07 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) are probably covered under Fair Use. [...] This is England calling. Would the FSF have to sue

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-07 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Kern, On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:53:19PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: Well, the above is total Greek to me. However, I must say that there is absolutely no reason why Bacula would every accompany OpenSSL in any sense of the the English meaning of accompany that I am aware of Bacula doesn't

New Private Message from Sussan Kamara on TrustedOpinion

2007-06-07 Thread Sussan Kamara
Hey Marco-belo, Sussan Kamara just posted a new private message to you on TrustedOpinion. Click below to view your message: http://www.trustedopinion.com/in/tropbox/LoadMessage.do?method=loadMessagemessageId=1247144recipientId=13928 To view Sussan Kamara's profile click here: