On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 07:19:19PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Well, it seems that OpenSSL's major crime here is that is isn't under the
> One True License.
Crime? You're the only one suggesting crime.
> So, yes, by your definition, there is only one way to do it, and
> OpenSSL isn't doing it that
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:44:18PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > Then it's up to the authors of the programs needing the extra
> > functionality to conform, not the one providing the functionality...
>
> Ah: there can be only one way to do it.
Well, it see
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:44:18PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Then it's up to the authors of the programs needing the extra
> functionality to conform, not the one providing the functionality...
Ah: there can be only one way to do it.
You learn something every day.
--
Raul
Branden, you have an understudy
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> begin John Galt quotation:
> > I know that serious consideration of anything over one line (hence
> > your prediliction for the one-line dismissal of anyone who you have
> > had disagreements with in the past) is bey
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:06:06PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of
> > the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw.
>
> The problem here is that some GPLed software has a use
begin John Galt quotation:
> I know that serious consideration of anything over one line (hence
> your prediliction for the one-line dismissal of anyone who you have
> had disagreements with in the past) is beyond your skills, but
> please don't remind me of it
Perhaps your time would
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 01:21:56PM +1300, Carey Evans wrote:
> I believe openssl inherits most of its GPL-incompatible clauses from
> ssleay. For example, I have an old copy of fcrypt.c, which is part of
> Eric Young's libdes, which includes:
>
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning feature
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:06:06PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of
> the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw.
The problem here is that some GPLed software has a use for the
functionality of the openssl software, but
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A tempting idea: start a project derived from ssleay, and reimplement
> openssl.
I believe openssl inherits most of its GPL-incompatible clauses from
ssleay. For example, I have an old copy of fcrypt.c, which is part of
Eric Young's libdes, which include
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:09:57PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:09:57PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > > > I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:06:06PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of
> the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw. Basically they
> take it as an "embrace and extend" move by the FSF. It's rather ironic
> coming
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > > I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL
> >
> > I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual pr
Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of
the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw. Basically they
take it as an "embrace and extend" move by the FSF. It's rather ironic
coming from me, but can't we all just forget the BSD/GPL bullshit for once
and ju
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL
>
> I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual property.
I hear that you can only deprogram a Randroid w
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL
I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual property.
--
Raul
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Paul Kienzle wrote:
> > BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE,
> Does the free license change the applicability of the law?
> And if it does, doesn't the fact that the license was provided
> for free immediately apply even if you don't mention that i
Paul Kienzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is clearly redundant and awkward, so how about:
>
> This program is provided "as is" without warranty of any
> kind. Use it at your own risk.
Nah, that's way too snappy. How about:
11. FOR REASONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FACT TH
Hi all,
Has anyone written a plain language disclaimer? It bothers me to see such
redundant language on licenses, especially when they must appear in every
file. I have a package ready to be distributed with Debian as soon as I
sort out the license.
Is "legalese" really a legal necessity, or is
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:04:15PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> > > fetchmail is licensed under GPL license. What about conflict between GPL
> > > and BSD clauses from openssl? I mean the problem with mutt and ssl. What
> > > about lynx-ssl, links-ssl,
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:04:15PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> > fetchmail is licensed under GPL license. What about conflict between GPL
> > and BSD clauses from openssl? I mean the problem with mutt and ssl. What
> > about lynx-ssl, links-ssl, fetchmail-ssl and others?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000
21 matches
Mail list logo
