Hi all,
this "GnuTLS in Debian" thread triggered my switch of the src:cups
package from linking against GnuTLS to now link against OpenSSL. CUPS is
GPL-2 only with an OpenSSL exception.
Today, Andreas rightly pointed to me that this induces a problem (for
Debian) for all GPL-without-OpenSSL-ex
On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 17:55 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this "GnuTLS in Debian" thread triggered my switch of the src:cups
> package from linking against GnuTLS to now link against OpenSSL. CUPS is
> GPL-2 only with an OpenSSL exception.
>
> Today, Andreas rightly pointed t
Do I understand correctly the following:
Application M under the MIT license linked to LGPL3 library L - ok
Application C under the CDDL license linked to LGPL3 library L - ok
Application G under the GPL3 license linked to LGPL3 library L - ok,
all under GPL3
Bang!
Application M is now under the
On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 17:55 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this "GnuTLS in Debian" thread triggered my switch of the src:cups
> package from linking against GnuTLS to now link against OpenSSL. CUPS is
> GPL-2 only with an OpenSSL exception.
> Now, as far as I understood the th
On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 21:37 +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> Do I understand correctly the following:
>
> Application M under the MIT license linked to LGPL3 library L - ok
> Application C under the CDDL license linked to LGPL3 library L - ok
> Application G under the GPL3 license linked to LGPL3 libra
Svante Signell wrote:
[...]
> What are the chances of cups re-licensing (dual-licensing) to GPL2+?
> This would be a step in the right direction. (in worst case use some
> other software package than cups as default for printing)
I'd guess minimal, iirc Apple has no love for GPLv3.
cu Andreas
--
2014/1/11 Andreas Metzler :
> Svante Signell wrote:
> [...]
>> What are the chances of cups re-licensing (dual-licensing) to GPL2+?
>> This would be a step in the right direction. (in worst case use some
>> other software package than cups as default for printing)
>
> I'd guess minimal, iirc Apple
Matthias Klumpp writes:
> Changing this would only mean that CUPS forks have the option to be
> distributed under GPLv3. I don't see a reason why Apple should be
> against this.
Apple appears to be against anything containing the phrase GPLv3, to the
extent that their employees were even forbidd
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:24:16PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 17:55 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this "GnuTLS in Debian" thread triggered my switch of the src:cups
> > package from linking against GnuTLS to now link against OpenSSL. CUPS is
> >
El sáb, 11 de ene 2014 a las 10:41 , Russ Allbery
escribió:
Matthias Klumpp writes:
Changing this would only mean that CUPS forks have the option to be
distributed under GPLv3. I don't see a reason why Apple should be
against this.
Apple appears to be against anything containing the phras
On 01/11/2014 11:55 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> So as far as CUPS is concerned, I see three ways forward:
>
> 1) revert the switch to OpenSSL and link against GnuTLS 2. This
>basically postpones the question to the moment when GnuTLS 2 is
>removed from Debian. As I understood the thr
On 01/11/2014 02:22 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> 1) ask GMP to switch back from LGPLv3+ to LGPLv2+ (it made the change
> in 4.2.2). Does anyone have a strong
Bah. This was supposed to say "Does anyone have a strong relationship
with GMP maintainers who could open this conversation with the
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> On 01/11/2014 02:22 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> 1) ask GMP to switch back from LGPLv3+ to LGPLv2+ (it made the change
>> in 4.2.2). Does anyone have a strong
> Bah. This was supposed to say "Does anyone have a strong relationship
> with GMP maintainers who
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Georges Khaznadar
* Package name: openlayer
Version : 2.1
Upstream Author : Esa Tanskanen
* URL : http://openlayer.berlios.de/
* License : GPL-2+
Programming Lang: C++
Description : hardware accelerated 2D Graphi
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: CUPS is now linked against OpenSSL"):
> Isn't GMP an official GNU project? I thought the FSF had an
> organization-wide policy to relicense all of their packages to v3 or
> later.
Perhaps we might be able to persaude them to make an exception for
GMP. The FSF certainly
Hi Ian,
On Sonntag, 12. Januar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The argument I would make (because I believe in it) is that lack of
> good cryptographic software is a bigger threat to the freedom of users
> than tivoisation (and, the other downsides of GPLv2 compared to v3).
absolutly agreed! Please go
I stopped maintaining it years ago and nobody ever bothered to ask me
about it...
It does not support MIME and a lot of other things that are required to
be a good citizen in today's Internet, so unless somebody has some
really compelling arguments to keep it around and wants to adopt it
I will
17 matches
Mail list logo
