I think it's highly ironic that the GPL has such grief with the
advertising clause, when it was the advertising clause that tripped up
AT&T during their lawsuit with UC Berkeley over Unix ten years ago. AT&T
was using BSD code and didn't follow that license, thus (in the
settlement) BSD 4.4-Lite
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 03:04:07PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> You're asserting that programs that talk via the loopback adaptor (or is it
> TCP/IP in general) must have compatible licenses. That's just not true.
> Debian uses stunnel and sslwrap to wrap all sorts of services in this manner
>
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 10:30:15AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you want to run a server with SSL, you can always fork() and then exec()
> > stunnel in the child to relay SSL connections in plaintext to the parent via
> > a listening port on th
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:45:37PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> stunnel might be a better tool for this, since it returns determinate error
> levels when there's a problem. Also, read() and write() calls on the socket
> FD that's talking to stunnel will fail in a manner similer to if a TCP/IP
>
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 09:30:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 03:44:21AM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > This isn't neccessary. It's possible to create two sockets with
> > socketpair(), and fork(). Then close FD's 0 and 1 in the child and clone one
> > of the socket FD's
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:25:19AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Rewriting the damned GPL to be compatible with the rest of the world
> might be a good place to start rewriting.
If the damned GPL didn't have that "incompatibility" there would be no
Debian, BSD would probably still require you signed a
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 03:44:21AM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> This isn't neccessary. It's possible to create two sockets with
> socketpair(), and fork(). Then close FD's 0 and 1 in the child and clone one
> of the socket FD's onto FD's 0 and 1 before closing it. Then you can exec()
> openssl s
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want to run a server with SSL, you can always fork() and then exec()
> stunnel in the child to relay SSL connections in plaintext to the parent via
> a listening port on the loopback adaptor.
RMS wouldn't like this. It obvious avoiding the GPL'
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then it's up to the authors of the programs needing the extra
> functionality to conform, not the one providing the
> functionality...
Except for the QT-case where Troll Tech was forced to change their
license to conform to the KDE license. (Ok, KDE wouldn'
On Fre, 15 Dez 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, PHYSICAL LAW
> (INLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO OHM'S LAW, SPECIAL RELATIVITY,
> GENERAL RELATIVITY AND SOD'S LAW), ORDINARY LOGIC WITH OR WITHOUT
That would be invalid because the theory of relati
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 10:35:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Which sounds easier: rewriting open ssl, or rewriting all GPLed programs
> which use sockets to communicate with other systems?
>
This isn't neccessary. It's possible to create two sockets with
socketpair(), and fork(). Then close
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
Then why the rewrite if >I< am the one sugges
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:44:18PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> functionality... If this were a reverse situation with the GPL providing
> the functional piece and a smallish set of incompatibly licensed software
> requiring the piece, would there be any talk of rewriting the GPL
> software?
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
