On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 17:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Now, that just means it *was* consensus. If it is no longer consensus
(and it better not be), we need to look at how such an egregious mistake
happened, and how we can prevent
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 17:57, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:20:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:15, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free.
...because we don't undestand what X-Oz means when they say
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says
obtaining, using and/or copying this work implies acceptance of the
license.
I think it sets a bad precedent to wave such language into a
list of licenses we
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public
conversations with X-Oz, and Brian declared non-free at the start of
this thread -- is identical to that used in the existing X license.
It can be read as
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:57:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[I am not subscribed to -newmaint.]
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 08:37:40PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
For that matter, I'm not quite sure we should necessarily be subjecting
applicants to the joys of rigorous licence analysis.
On 2004-08-09 06:17:17 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since February, -legal has had an official (as official as they get)
document claiming that even without further annoyances from X-Oz that
clause is non-free. Simon Law, who wrote that summary, has since
realized it was a huge
This summary covers 2 August to 8 August 2004.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/maillist.html#00052
Active threads with over 4 posts:
Please pass judgement on X-Oz licences: free or nay?, over 40 posts,
last post 8 Aug
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public
conversations with X-Oz, and Brian declared non-free at the start of
this thread -- is identical to that
On 2004-08-09 10:38:45 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see the difference. I mean, I see the difference that one can
be
read as an assertion and the other can be read as a clause. But I
don't see how that affects any practical or legal conclusions. In
other
words, if I
Hi,
I'm asking for advice.
The best explanation can be found at this feature request on SourceForge:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=890674;
group_id=8642atid=358642
This is licence related. I'm using Debian, and prefer to grab
netatalk using the appropriate package
On 09-08-2004 13:49, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
GnuTLS has a openssl compatibility module.
Thanks!
Personally I fear the upstream maintainers are not willing to change their
code for just this. After all, they already link with the technically
excellent OpenSSL library, which is
Hello Brian,
* Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-09 12:58]:
It can be really tough to test NM's who are not native English speakers
about licensing issues. Legal text is very different from colloquial
English, and non-native speakers are often completely overwhelmed.
Hell, even native
On 2004-08-09 12:36:46 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably
make
the exception (without asking all possible contributors)
I think so.
3. Is there any way of getting netatalk with encrypted passwords in
sarge?
On 09-08-2004 14:33, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nope. The same argument actually applies - if netatalk is a derivative
of openssl (and if it's been coded against it, then the FSF would
probably claim that it is) then it's illegal to distribute it in any
form under the current
On 2004-08-09 13:35:30 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself (which
is of
course perfectly fine, and allowed according to both the GPL and the
openssl
licence) then to change the code of netatalk to have it link to
gnutls.
On 2004-08-09 13:35:30 +0100 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself
[...] then to change the code of netatalk to have it link to
gnutls.
Fine. If you choose not to help others, that's your choice. I don't
like it.
I could have just compiled
On 2004-08-09 13:55:01 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl.
From a quick inspection, I don't think that will be true for all of a
netatalk binary compiled with openssl-related parts enabled. I think
you realised this in your later
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 07:07:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Apart from Raul Miller's[1], I have yet to read a rebutal to Manoj's draft
position statement on the GNU FDL[2].
If you would direct me to one which represents the will of the project as
a whole, I'd appreciate it.
Given
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 04:36:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 03:10:06 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not so sure that it should go to d-d-a. For one time deals, where
a legal analysis affects a lot of packages, sure. But not for a
weekly synopsis. That is more
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Has anything changed in the statement made to debian-legal in 2002?
It's still the case that the openssl license is considered incompatible
with the GPL.
2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably make
the exception
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I fear the upstream maintainers are not willing to change their
code for just this. After all, they already link with the technically
excellent OpenSSL library, which is indeed open source.
If you're lucky, no code changes would be needed.
On 09-08-2004 14:33, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nope. The same argument actually applies - if netatalk is a derivative
of openssl (and if it's been coded against it, then the FSF would
probably claim that it is) then it's illegal to distribute it in any
form under the current
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public
conversations with X-Oz, and Brian declared non-free at the start
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And obtaining GNU Emacs does not entitle you to run it on a gnu.org
machine. Why should this be any different? You have control over your
own boxes and what runs on them. I have the same control over mine. If
you make software available, I can run
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OpenSSL does give that permission:
http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 (last paragraph of
answer)
The OpenSSL license requires an ad for Eric Young on all software
using it. The GPL conflicts with that requirement.
Netatalk is willing to
On 09-08-2004 17:14, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl.
From a quick inspection, I don't think that will be true for all of a
netatalk binary compiled with openssl-related parts enabled. I think
you realised this in your later message.
No. This
On 09-08-2004 18:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is sad that despite all copyright holders are more then willing to
co-operate, there still is something holding them back.
Yes -- the rest of the copyright holders. Bug the Samba/libiconv
folks if you like, but I suggest
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 04:59, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 10:38:45 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see the difference. I mean, I see the difference that one can
be
read as an assertion and the other can be read as a clause. But I
don't see how that affects any
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 11:02, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:45, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 06:17:17 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since February, -legal has had an official (as official as they get)
document claiming that even without further annoyances from X-Oz that
clause is non-free. Simon Law, who
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Netatalk CAN be linked against openssl, to provide password encryption.
The current package in sarge (testing) is not linked against OpenSSL, so all
passwords are sent in clear text over the line.
Right. Which, arguably, makes a small part of netatalk a
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if indeed netatalk contains executable code from openssl, then according
to #2, the redistributed binary must have the openssl-licence, and that is
not allowed. However, just thinking about how dynamic libraries work, I
belief there is no executable
On 9-8-2004 18:58, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if indeed netatalk contains executable code from openssl, then according
to #2, the redistributed binary must have the openssl-licence, and that is
not allowed. However, just thinking
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:29:21PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
On 09-08-2004 17:14, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl.
From a quick inspection, I don't think that will be true for all of a
netatalk binary compiled with openssl-related parts
On 2004-08-09 18:07:24 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I'm also convinced that just because it's not numbered like it
is in the BSD license, doesn't make it not a clause.
[...] At no point is it obvious to me that the
following conditions is ending and being replaced by
On 2004-08-09 18:26:19 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[MJR] summary
guidelines suggest a link back to the DFSG for all problems in clauses
3-4. The list of reasons in Jeremy Hankin's guidelines need not
connect
to the DFSG at all.
Either:
a. I was trying to con debian-legal
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:50:30PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
I understand the low risk thing. However, in this case, I'd say it's worth
the lawsuit. Though I have supported FSF, in the particular case I'd hope
they lose :-) (I'm sure Richard Stallman doesn't agree with me).
If they lose
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Personally I fear the upstream maintainers are not willing to change
their code for just this. After all, they already link with the
technically excellent OpenSSL library, which is indeed open source.
This may be the case, but that shouldn't prevent
Hello
The MySQL and its libraries has been put under the GPL (not LGPL) a while ago
and since then conflicts with PHP etc which is not GPL compatible but still
DFSG compliant (or so I understood).
MySQL addressed this issue now by making yet another version of their FLOSS
Exception license
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:06:39AM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
However, that being said, I claim it does not apply to this particular
scenario! In this case, I suggested to distributed a binary of netatalk,
including the UAMS linked with OpenSSL under GPL. To see if this is allowed
you
hi,
as far as i understood the messages on debian-legal, the license of
some mysql libraries changed from lgpl to gpl.
this makes it impossible to link any non-gpl conform software with them.
anyway, i've no glue about what this has to do with pyhton-mysqldb, as
this is licensed under GPL or the
On 10/08/2004 Christian Hammers wrote:
The MySQL and its libraries has been put under the GPL (not LGPL) a while ago
and since then conflicts with PHP etc which is not GPL compatible but still
DFSG compliant (or so I understood).
how exatly, is php itself not gpl compatible, or only the php
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:07:01PM -0400, MOB JUNKY wrote:
* Note that the GPL places important restrictions on derived works,
yet *
* it does not provide a detailed definition of that term. To
avoid *
* misunderstandings, we consider an application to constitute
a *
*
I was contemplating the conundrum of open source digital rights management,
and would like some feedback. If someone were to write digital rights
software, eg. for downloading from iTunes, could they license it under a free
software license like the GPL, with an added clause:
If the Program is
Jonas Meurer said on Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 03:00:21AM +0200,:
how exatly, is php itself not gpl compatible, or only the php scripts?
From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html:-
quote
This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free
software license which is
Joe Wreschnig wrote in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00200.html:
I guess I'm also convinced that just because it's not numbered like it
is in the BSD license, doesn't make it not a clause. That is, the X
license says Permission is hereby granted... subject to the following
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 01:33:09PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I fear the upstream maintainers are not willing to change their
code for just this. After all, they already link with the technically
excellent OpenSSL library, which is
48 matches
Mail list logo
