Marek Habersack wrote, among other interesting stuff:
[T]he thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib[1] in the
Caudium[2] project. Looking at [2], I see clauses which make
cryptlib not compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG.
Huh? I see no such clauses[1], unless you're
Marek Habersack wrote:
Hey all,
I know it belongs in debian-legal, but I'm not inclined enough to join
yet another mailing list which I will read few and far between, so I will
take the liberty to ask my question here.
You are right, your questions are better asked in debian-legal, with a
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
I know it belongs in debian-legal, but I'm not inclined enough to
join yet another mailing list which I will read few and far between,
so I will take the liberty to ask my question here.
In cases like these, please set Mail-Followup-To: so you'll be
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you
[snip]
It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in many
projects
it distributes (like mozilla,
Marek Habersack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you
[snip]
It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in many
projects
it
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:39:59PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Marek Habersack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled:
Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you
[snip]
It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
software are
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
[snip]
It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free
software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in
many projects it distributes (like mozilla, php, apache to name the
most prominent
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
You (in general) can't incorporate code which is under a license that
is incompatible with the GPL to create a derivative work under the GPL
unless you yourself are the copyright
OK, the thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib[1] in the
Caudium[2] project. Looking at [2], I see clauses which make cryptlib not
compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG. The license is a BSD one,
that's clear, but the terms of use and usage conditions seem to restrict the
Marek Habersack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's fine, but read what does the copyright say exactly:
Some files in this source package are under the Netscape Public License
Others, under the Mozilla Public license, and just to confuse you even
more, some are dual licensed MPL/GPL.
That
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:53:46AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
You (in general) can't incorporate code which is under a license that
is incompatible with the GPL to create a
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
if we have two source files A and B producing object files A and B,
with both of them calling (linking to in effect) some GPL API, A
being derived from B (e.g. a C++ class that descends from a class
defined in B), A being MPL and B being GPL?
If A
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:06:20PM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
if we have two source files A and B producing object files A and B,
with both of them calling (linking to in effect) some GPL API, A
being derived from B (e.g. a C++ class that
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote:
What makes it more serious this time, is the heading - which says
usage conditions - that's a pretty strong statement.
Yeah, but this is on a website, not the actual code. What matters are
the copyright statements on the code and the license that they
14 matches
Mail list logo
