Leo Famulari writes:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 02:17:33PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> * Disable substitutes for relevent packages. Technically correct as
>> license incompatibility is only triggered on transmission of binary,
>> though maybe missing something about the spirit of the G
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 02:17:33PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> * Disable substitutes for relevent packages. Technically correct as
> license incompatibility is only triggered on transmission of binary,
> though maybe missing something about the spirit of the GPL.
Maybe, but did anyone wi
Vagrant Cascadian schreef op vr 22-10-2021 om 14:15 [-0700]:
> [...]
> Though, it is *possible* that various u-boot-BOARD in some cases
> doesn't
> include any openssl code at all in the resulting binaries, but builds
> some tools used during the build process, that are then used to
> produce
> var
On 2021-10-21, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> For the last couple years guix has been applying simple workarounds in
> u-boot packages to disable the features that required openssl due to
> GPL/openssl license incompatibilities.
>
> I made an attempt at updating guix to u-boot 2021.10, which seems to
>
On 2021-10-22, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:17:03PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> While openssl 3.0 is licensed compatibly with GPLv3, u-boot has portions
>> which are GPLv2-only, so that's not as attractive of a way forward as
>> one might hope for...
>
> What are other di
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:17:03PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> While openssl 3.0 is licensed compatibly with GPLv3, u-boot has portions
> which are GPLv2-only, so that's not as attractive of a way forward as
> one might hope for...
What are other distros doing? Surely we can't be the only gr
On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
>> I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to add more comments
>> regarding the GPL/Openssl incompatibilities; e.g. if someone were to
>> propose adding one of the u-boot targets that requires it, they might
>> just go ahead an
Hi there! :D
Em 07/03/2019 01:17, Vagrant Cascadian escreveu:
> How many of them are also license:gpl* though? That would hopefully
My Guix pull is from commit d22d246a256814784dfb03437949bdc2efd746a5.
I made a little recsel trick to get all packages licensed under [A]GPL
(any version) and which
Hi,
Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
> On 2019-03-09, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
>>> On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
In addition, we can add a ‘lint’ checker for this case, WDYT?
>>>
>>> Does the lint checker have a way to identify
Hi,
Hopefully the OpenSSL re-licensing [0] will help with this problem in the
long-term. At least for code that can be distributed under GPLv3, which
may include u-boot [1].
Best,
Jack
[0] https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2018/03/01/last-license/
[1] https://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Licensin
On 2019-03-09, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
>> On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
>>> In addition, we can add a ‘lint’ checker for this case, WDYT?
>>
>> Does the lint checker have a way to identify a confidence level,
>> e.g. *maybe* it ha
Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
> On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
>>> I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to add more comments
>>> regarding the GPL/Openssl incompatibilities; e.g. if someone were to
>>> propose adding one of the u-boot targets that requires
On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
>> I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to add more comments
>> regarding the GPL/Openssl incompatibilities; e.g. if someone were to
>> propose adding one of the u-boot targets that requires it, they might
>> just go ahead an
Hi,
Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
> I've tested that the attached patch builds all u-boot-* targets on
> x86_64 (cross-building most of them), with openssl removed from
> native-inputs.
>
> Unfortunately, u-boot-tools fails it's tests on aarch64 and armhf, but
> that appears to be the case with or
Ludovic Courtès skribis:
> Here’s an estimate:
Oops, I was doing an “or” instead of an “and”; here’s the fix:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
$ guix package -s "" |recsel -e 'license ~ "GPL" && dependencies ~ "openssl"'
|grep ^name | wc -l
154
--8<
Danny Milosavljevic skribis:
> I can't believe I seriously suggest the following but:
>
> A license algebra [...]
Yeah, licensing is anything but an algebra, so let’s not take that path.
:-)
Ludo’.
Hi
Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
> On 2019-03-06, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
>> openssl@1.0 has 7,029 dependent packages, so it may be hard to sort it
>> out. I wonder what would be the best way to approach it.
>
> How many of them are also license:gpl* though? That would hopefully
> reduce th
On 2019-03-06, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2019-03-06, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
>>> The u-boot package definition includes openssl amoung it's inputs, but
>>> is also a GPL2+ software project... but the GPL and OpenSSL licenses are
>>> incompatible:
>>>
>>> https://
On 2019-03-06, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
>
>> The u-boot package definition includes openssl amoung it's inputs, but
>> is also a GPL2+ software project... but the GPL and OpenSSL licenses are
>> incompatible:
>>
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpenSSL
Hi,
> openssl@1.0 has 7,029 dependent packages, so it may be hard to sort it
> out. I wonder what would be the best way to approach it.
I can't believe I seriously suggest the following but:
A license algebra and guix commands that automate part of the lawyering,
by using the "license" field of
Hi Vagrant,
Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
> The u-boot package definition includes openssl amoung it's inputs, but
> is also a GPL2+ software project... but the GPL and OpenSSL licenses are
> incompatible:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpenSSL
Thanks for bringing it up.
> I
The u-boot package definition includes openssl amoung it's inputs, but
is also a GPL2+ software project... but the GPL and OpenSSL licenses are
incompatible:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpenSSL
It doesn't explain the details of *why* they're incompatibly, which is
astoundingl
22 matches
Mail list logo
