Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

2017-03-31 Thread Richard Fontana
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:37:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:28:46 -0400 Richard Fontana wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > > > > > Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the c

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

2017-03-31 Thread Richard Fontana
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:27:46AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On the other hand, when a larger upstream project > granted us a linking exception for OpenSSL, they probably did not > obtain consent from all the copyright holders, either. Right. For example, I remember one case where a Debian de

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

2017-03-29 Thread Richard Fontana
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL > program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program > to be used along with OpenSSL, when they where the ones implementing >

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

2017-03-29 Thread Richard Fontana
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:49:04AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > However, I still don't understand why we don't just declare OpenSSL a > system library; or at least define a clear policy for when a package is > considered part of the base system (so the GPL system exception applies > t

Re: AGPLv3 Compliance and Debian Users

2013-07-11 Thread Richard Fontana
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:27:31AM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > > > I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked > > > > about the b

Re: AGPLv3 Compliance and Debian Users

2013-07-11 Thread Richard Fontana
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked > > about the basis of the network part of the AGPL during the GPLv3 talk > > at DebConf10 in NYC, Bradley said the AGPL was specifically based on > > modificat

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

2013-07-02 Thread Richard Fontana
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:20:48PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > I don't believe I have spread any FUD. > [...] > 2. AGPLv3 is incompatible with Apache 2.0 license (http://www.apache.org/ > licenses/GPL-compatibility.html) Only in the same sense that GPL or LGPL (any version) is incompatible with a