On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 01:56:56PM -0600, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> Goodness. I had no idea about this. One of my projects has just been
> released under the GPL and it links to OpenSSL. I take it that this is a
> problem?
If you're the author of all the GPLed code, it's not a problem for you
a
> Raul> The OS exception lets people other than the OS distributor
> Raul> distribute GPLed code linked against a proprietary OS.
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 10:13:23PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> This is not what the text says:
>
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> Note that the exception for stuff "distributed with the
Anthony> major components of the operating system" doesn't apply
Anthony> if we distribute both the executable and the
"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> Note that the exception for stuff "distributed with the
> Anthony> major components of the operating system" doesn't apply
> Anthony> if we distribute both the executable and the libarary in
> Anthony> Debian. It probably does apply for
> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> Note that the exception for stuff "distributed
Anthony> with the major components of the operating system"
Anthony> doesn't apply if we distribute both the executable and
Anthony> the libarary in Debian. It probably does apply for
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:03:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> This doesn't make OpenSSL non-free, but it does cause problems for a
> number of packages in the archive which both appear to be under the GPL,
> and which are linked against openssl. These are:
>
>
>
> Probably, we should contact t
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:03:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...] In particular, the
> OpenSSL license is probably not GPL compatible, due to both an explicit
> "You can't use this code under the GPL"-esque clause, and two or three
> obnoxious advertising clauses.
It not only has the obno
Anthony Towns writes:
> into their libssl, for reference), and GPL-related. In particular, the
> OpenSSL license is probably not GPL compatible, due to both an explicit
> "You can't use this code under the GPL"-esque clause, and two or three
> obnoxious advertising clauses.
I would think that th
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:03:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, anyway, we've been looking into the "crypto-in-main" issue recently,
I'm hoping not to flog a dead horse here or come accross as a troll,
but I had a (possibly stupid) thought about the whole crypto issue
today.
AFAIK, the regul
Hello world,
So, anyway, we've been looking into the "crypto-in-main" issue recently,
and someone (actually someones, probably) mentioned that the OpenSSL has
some problems, both patent related (it includes IDEA, and some other
patented algorithms -- Red Hat gets around this by not compiling them
10 matches
Mail list logo
