Le dimanche 30 septembre 2007 à 20:24 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me.
I prefer the following which is a modification of my prior license that
was accepted by Debian. The modification makes my prior license a bit
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 16:03, MJ Ray wrote:
Shane Martin Coughlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Exception to the GPL:
Linking:
Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted=20
under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:22, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 25 septembre 2007 à 15:14 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
Thanks for looking up the above -- very interesting.
However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me.
I prefer the following which is a
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 17:43, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
=
Exception to the GPL:
Linking:
Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted
under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that
are required
Shane Martin Coughlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Exception to the GPL:
Linking:
Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted=20
under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that=
are
required for its proper functioning,
Hello Shane,
On Monday 24 September 2007 18:08, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
As far as I can see, the project has the following ways to proceed:
1. Add a modification to our existing license that permits linking with
OpenSSL.
I think this is the simplest
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
=
Exception to the GPL:
Linking:
Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted
under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL,
that are required for its proper functioning, providing the license
and hence
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
=
Exception to the GPL:
Linking:
Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted
under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are
required for its proper functioning, providing the license and hence source
code
Le mardi 25 septembre 2007 à 15:14 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
Thanks for looking up the above -- very interesting.
However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me. I
prefer the following which is a modification of my prior license that was
accepted by Debian.
Hello,
To follow up on this: as of 5 September, Bacula source code is free of third
party copyrighted code that is GPLed. Doing so, did unfortunately create a
good deal of instability, which we are dealing with. However, for the future
(probably version 3.0.0), we will be able to use OpenSSL
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
As far as I can see, the project has the following ways to proceed:
1. Add a modification to our existing license that permits linking with
OpenSSL.
I think this is the simplest clause, and it keeps well within the
precedent already accepted by the Bacula
This one time, at band camp, Shane Martin Coughlan said:
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
As far as I can see, the project has the following ways to proceed:
1. Add a modification to our existing license that permits linking with
OpenSSL.
I think this is the simplest clause, and it keeps
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Michael, Anthony
I just wanted to let you know that I have forwarded your comments and
feedback regarding GPLv3, OpenSSL and System Libraries to Brett Smith,
licence engineer at FSF. :)
Regards
Shane
- --
Shane Coughlan
FTF Coordinator
Free
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 03:12:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In particular, going by the GPLv3:
] The System Libraries of an executable work [...]
So I've done the here's what the license says, let's parse it to see
if we can extract any meaning thing, but I haven't done it the other
way --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
RE: The FSF position regarding OpenSSL as a system library in Debian.
===
We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
only code that accompanies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear all
Following comments on FSF's position regarding OpenSSL as a System
Library in Debian, Brett Smith at FSF sent the following message:
===
I apologize for my misunderstandings about OpenSSL's status in Debian,
and appreciate the corrections.
Shane M. Coughlan writes:
Dear all
Following comments on FSF's position regarding OpenSSL as a System
Library in Debian, Brett Smith at FSF sent the following message:
===
I apologize for my misunderstandings about OpenSSL's status in Debian,
and appreciate the corrections. However,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 05:10:32PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Following comments on FSF's position regarding OpenSSL as a System
Library in Debian, Brett Smith at FSF sent the following message:
===
I apologize for my misunderstandings about OpenSSL's status in Debian,
and appreciate
I agree with AJ's statements and add only this:
Apt is priority important. That is the same priority as openssl.
Apt has relativly few revese dependencies (it appears to have less than
openssl does). But libapt is without any doubt
a system library under the GPLv3. It accompanies apt which is
Thomas Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
accept an entirely new
Hi Shane,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I agree that the GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license, in the
sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does
Hello Shane,
On Thursday 19 July 2007 16:22, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Dear Steve
Steve Langasek wrote:
I agree that the GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license, in
the
sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is incorrect. The FSF has granted OpenSSL license exceptions to
some software that links to OpenSSL. For example, GNU wget.
That's not an example (unless you're intending to show a case where
FSF allows itself to do things that it forbids others
Thomas Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I know, the FSF doesn't forbid anyone to use GPL with an
OpenSSL exception.
That's entirely possible, but you haven't provided an example which
isn't contaminated by self-interest on the part of FSF. If you can
provide such an example,
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kind of example are you looking for?
The example that you failed to provide in the posting to which I responded.
(let's not get sidetracked)
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Steve
Steve Langasek wrote:
I agree that the GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license, in the
sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Well, it is pretty general purpose. None of the FSF code is network or TLS
related. The FSF files involved are:
src/lib/fnmatch.h FSF
src/lib/fnmatch.c FSF
src/lib/enh_fnmatch.h FSF
src/lib/enh_fnmatch.c FSF
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
===
We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
only code that accompanies genuinely fundamental components of the
system.
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
only code that accompanies genuinely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
On Saturday 14 July 2007 11:03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
That is incorrect. The FSF has granted OpenSSL license exceptions to
some software that links to OpenSSL. For example, GNU wget.
Interesting. Shane would you
On Monday 16 July 2007 10:57, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
On Saturday 14 July 2007 11:03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
That is incorrect. The FSF has granted OpenSSL license exceptions to
some software that links to OpenSSL. For example, GNU wget.
Interesting.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Yes, and in addition, after Josselin's email, I did a bit of research, and
for
at least one of the files that we use (fnmatch.c), the FSF license was
changed from GPL to LGPL sometime in 2004 the best I can tell.
On Monday 16 July 2007 17:15, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Yes, and in addition, after Josselin's email, I did a bit of research, and
for
at least one of the files that we use (fnmatch.c), the FSF license was
changed from GPL to LGPL sometime in 2004 the best I
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
accept an entirely new license.
I am told that FSF never grants exceptions so this is a hopeless path that I
On Saturday 14 July 2007 11:03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
accept an entirely new license.
I am told that FSF
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
accept an entirely new license.
I am told that FSF never grants
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
I agree that the GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license, in the
sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no more easily
Le vendredi 13 juillet 2007 à 07:20 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
Then, unless I have seriously misunderstood the reworded system
libraries exception, I think relicensing Bacula under the GPLv3 (or
dual-licensing under v2 and v3) should be fine for Debian.
Sorry, but could you run it by
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like a tit-for-a-tat clause so that those who modify it and
distribute
it are obligated to publish their modifications. The MIT license does not
provide that.
On the other hand, the MIT license permits even use by the objectionable
persons
Kern Sibbald wrote:
2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I
don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula
compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me
to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
What I would like:
I would like Bacula to be able to be freely used by all distros without
licensing problems with any Open Source software including OpenSSL.
snip
1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 06:06:14PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus,
I
don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula
compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it
On Thursday 12 July 2007 18:06, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
What I would like:
I would like Bacula to be able to be freely used by all distros without
licensing problems with any Open Source software including OpenSSL.
snip
1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls.
On Thursday 12 July 2007 18:06, Gervase Markham wrote:
Kern Sibbald wrote:
2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like
Linus, I
don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula
compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that,
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Shane,
Bacula is nearing the end of a development cycle and the next version will
be
released in a matter of weeks, so I would like to revisit the problem that
recently came up with the Bacula license. My purpose
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 16:41 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
How do we get there?
It seems to me that there are a number of alternatives:
1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is working on this, but it
is not a small nor an easy project. And though it is something I consider
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 20:18 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
It seems a real pity to me that the GPL is so restrictive -- it should make
my
life as a programmer easier, but it has in fact made it harder.
The main point of the GPL is not to make your life easier, but to
prevent your code
On Thursday 12 July 2007 22:52, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 16:41 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
How do we get there?
It seems to me that there are a number of alternatives:
1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is working on this, but
it
is not a
On Thursday 12 July 2007 22:59, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 20:18 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
It seems a real pity to me that the GPL is so restrictive -- it should
make my
life as a programmer easier, but it has in fact made it harder.
The main point of the GPL
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 23:42 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
This flaw of the GPLv3 is at least good for something. If your GPL
software can now be included in the HP-UX or AIX distribution, it can
also be included in Debian.
Well, I don't consider the above a flaw. The flaw
On Friday 13 July 2007 01:31, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 23:42 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
This flaw of the GPLv3 is at least good for something. If your GPL
software can now be included in the HP-UX or AIX distribution, it can
also be included in Debian.
51 matches
Mail list logo
