On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> Reading through the license exception again, we only need to
> worry if the OpenSSL folks get nasty on us. This is because modified
> versions of OpenSSL must use the same license as OpenSSL (four-clause BSD
> with OpenSSL advertis
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 12:04:59PM +0200, Stefan Schwandter wrote:
> > In other words, if GPL'ed app A links against OpenSSL and GNU readline,
> > you need permission from both the copyright holder of "A" and from the
> > Free Software Foundation to link with OpenSSL.
>
> Ok. But how has this perm
On 24 May 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Simon Law wrote:
> > If that doesn't work, could we say that the OpenSSL library can
> > only be used for SSL support only?
>
> For a given definition of "SSL support"? :-)
>
> It seems to me that the best way forward is to restrict the exact
> behavior w
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2002, Renaud Deraison wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 12:32:39PM +0200, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I cancelled this patch, it turns my code into a non-GPL one.
> >
> > Here's my concern:
> >
> > You patch says:
> >
> > *
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 09:03:50AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > if a company made extensions to Nessus
> > and bundled them into the OpenSSL library; then they wouldn't actually
> > be derivative works of OpenSSL, but rather derivative works of Nessus.
>
On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 08:03, Simon Law wrote:
> I'm cc-ing to debian-legal about this, because I'm not sure if
> this argument would hold water: if a company made extensions to Nessus
> and bundled them into the OpenSSL library; then they wouldn't actually
> be derivative works of OpenSSL, bu
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 09:03:50AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> if a company made extensions to Nessus
> and bundled them into the OpenSSL library; then they wouldn't actually
> be derivative works of OpenSSL, but rather derivative works of Nessus.
The problem is that this is a _subjective_ issue. W
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 12:32:39PM +0200, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:10:45AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> > > 2002-05-22 Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > * Added th
Thanks to you both for the explainations!
Branden Robinson wrote:
> That is correct. Also, if the GPL'ed program also links against a
> separate GPL'ed library, the upstream author of that library has to
> permit it.
> In other words, if GPL'ed app A links against OpenSSL and GNU readline,
> y
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 12:30:38AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 21:47, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
> > Thanks to everyone for the information. I will probably need to consult
> > with our attorney and several others to make sure that whatever I use (even
> > if it
On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 21:47, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for the information. I will probably need to consult
> with our attorney and several others to make sure that whatever I use (even
> if it's the FSF template) properly addresses my concerns and doesn't create
11 matches
Mail list logo
