Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-27 Thread Marc Espie
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:18:26AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Lots of people have been receiving emails like the one below. [...] > Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:48:10 -0400 > From: lice...@openssl.org > To: dera...@cvs.openbsd.org > Subject: OpenSSL License change > Message-ID:

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-27 Thread Marc Espie
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 08:49:39PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > > > If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you have no objection. > > Is this for real?! > > Who do they think they are? ... > >People should not bother to respond to such nonsense, and

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-26 Thread Tom Cosgrove
>>> Jimmy Hess 27-Mar-17 02:49 >>> : > silence does not generally grant permission. Since never grants permission. > But the people in that project might be able to convincingly deliver some > kind of argument that they've had implicit or "understood" permissions > made at time of

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-26 Thread Jimmy Hess
> > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > > If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you have no objection. > Is this for real?! > Who do they think they are? ... >People should not bother to respond to such nonsense, and then sue > OpenSSL for obvious copyright infringement I think "Don't

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-24 Thread Steffen Nurpmeso
"Michael W. Lucas" wrote: |On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 02:37:58PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote: |> It's about "You cannot change the licence without consent of the \ |> author" and |> "We just assume that you say yes to this because we dont care about your |>

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-24 Thread Steffen Nurpmeso
Sebastian Benoit wrote: |Steffen Nurpmeso(stef...@sdaoden.eu) on 2017.03.24 14:03:45 +0100: |> Bob Beck wrote: ... |> According to [1] the chosen license is however the "best" academic |> license, and the only one which allows patent protection. Best in

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-24 Thread Gilles Chehade
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:55:10AM -0400, Michael W. Lucas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 02:37:58PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > > It's about "You cannot change the licence without consent of the author" and > > "We just assume that you say yes to this because we dont care about your > >

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-24 Thread Michael W. Lucas
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 02:37:58PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > It's about "You cannot change the licence without consent of the author" and > "We just assume that you say yes to this because we dont care about your > rights", which is morally and legally wrong. It's very simple. Four words.

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-24 Thread Sebastian Benoit
Steffen Nurpmeso(stef...@sdaoden.eu) on 2017.03.24 14:03:45 +0100: > Bob Beck wrote: > ... > > Disclaimer: i have read about licenses many years ago (likely over > a decade, i stopped reading the german computer magazine c't > somewhen in 2005). I like and use the ISC license

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-24 Thread Steffen Nurpmeso
Bob Beck wrote: ... Disclaimer: i have read about licenses many years ago (likely over a decade, i stopped reading the german computer magazine c't somewhen in 2005). I like and use the ISC license that your project has chosen and fosters whenever i can. According to [1] the

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-24 Thread Constantine A. Murenin
> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:48:10 -0400 > From: lice...@openssl.org > To: dera...@cvs.openbsd.org > Subject: OpenSSL License change [...] > We are asking for your permission to change the licence for your > contribution. Please visit this link to respond; you will have a chance [...] > If we

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-24 Thread Franco Fichtner
> On 24 Mar 2017, at 3:51 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > it is great that someone found a way to convert between licenses. > > AGPL -> GPL -> ISC -> PD pfSense went through with this, being a 2-Clause BSD fork of m0n0wall, going through a 6-Clause ESF and CLA (all your

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-24 Thread bytevolcano
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:51:06 -0600 "Theo de Raadt" wrote: > Dude, you are being melodramatic > > it is great that someone found a way to convert between licenses. > > AGPL -> GPL -> ISC -> PD > > thumbs up to the people who found a shortcut > Now this is genius.

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-23 Thread Theo de Raadt
> > If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you have no objection. > > So, they will claim that, by not responding, the recipient agreed. > > Some jurisdictions I am aware of accept verbal contracts or this kind > of written contracts, since civil proceedings will not be held up to a >

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-23 Thread Theo de Raadt
> So did anyone who replied with "NO" get a followup to "reconsider"? So far, everyone who says no is getting a mail from Rich Salz.

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-23 Thread Claus Assmann
So did anyone who replied with "NO" get a followup to "reconsider"? I only "contributed" some doc fixes, so my "vote" doesn't really mean much.

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-23 Thread bytevolcano
... > If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you have no objection. So, they will claim that, by not responding, the recipient agreed. Some jurisdictions I am aware of accept verbal contracts or this kind of written contracts, since civil proceedings will not be held up to a high

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-23 Thread Bob Beck
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 17:48 Bob Beck wrote: > Honestly, anyone who gets one of these should say no > > what would you all think if people quietly took derived works of software > licensed under one license and took silence as assent to relicense > > Does this mean that with an

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-23 Thread Bob Beck
Honestly, anyone who gets one of these should say no what would you all think if people quietly took derived works of software licensed under one license and took silence as assent to relicense Does this mean that with an unanswered email i can now release my re licensed as ISC version of gcc?

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-23 Thread Theo de Raadt
> > The start suggests they want to privately collect sufficient consensus > > to pass their agenda. They appear to be considering all actions in > > the tree (including mine) on equal grounds. > > I already sent them a clear "NO, i explicitly object to relicensing > any of my contributions." >

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-23 Thread Theo de Raadt
> > The last sentence suggests they don't care at all about the rights of > > the authors. > > I also sent them a separate mail stating that i strongly suspect > that last sentence to be grossly illegal in almost any jurisdiction. Of course: Lack of consent is not equal to consent.

Re: regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-23 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi Theo, Theo de Raadt wrote on Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:18:26AM -0600: > Lots of people have been receiving emails like the one below. > > They have never asked the community of authors what they want. > > I think OpenSSL are using a github "garbage-in / garbage-out" style of > process. Feel

regarding OpenSSL License change

2017-03-23 Thread Theo de Raadt
Lots of people have been receiving emails like the one below. They have never asked the community of authors what they want. I think OpenSSL are using a github "garbage-in / garbage-out" style of process. Feel free to dig into what they think I am author of, and why. The start suggests they