On 2024-06-06 Arun Kumar Pariyar wrote:
> Dear Legal Team,
> Can LGPL-3+ and LGPL-2.1 licensed code be used together in the same
> library, or is re-licensing required?
> Your guidance on their compatibility would be greatly appreciated.
Hello,
AFAIK, please doublecheck:
LGPL 2.1 (3) allows re
On 2024-02-04 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> The canonical solution would be to add libboost-commonx.xx containing
> what is currently found in /usr/share/doc/libboost-foox.xx and symlink
> the whole directory. You'll probably need to make libboost-commonx.xx
> arch all to be
On 2024-02-04 Muhammad Yaaseen wrote:
> The question is once we install the libboost .deb packages into a
> system, the copyright file for each libboost package is stored
> separately in /usr/shared/doc/packages folder. I'm think of
> hardlinking these copyright files so that we same some memory.
Hello,
GnuTLS is pondering a license switch from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+/GPLv2+ dual
license. GnuTLS itself links dynamically against GMP which is already
LGPLv3+/GPLv2+ dual licensed. So afaict this should not make a difference,
gnutls rdeps already need a license which compatible with LGPLv3+ or
GPLv
On 2020-05-18 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Metzler:
>> It is not uncommon to directly generate C source from ASN.1 modules.
> Is that really true? Are there high-quality free ASN.1 toolchains?
[...]
>From what I have seen these are not general solutions but ad-hoc generat
On 2020-05-17 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Andreas Metzler writes:
> > Do we consider ASN.1 modules (e.g. the specification of
> > AttCertValidityPeriod in rfc 3281) to be code or specification?
> >
> > On one hand the rfc coyright fixup for "code components&q
Hello,
Do we consider ASN.1 modules (e.g. the specification of
AttCertValidityPeriod in rfc 3281) to be code or specification?
On one hand the rfc coyright fixup for "code components" in newer
RFCs (post Nov 2008) explicitely includes ASN.1 modules as one of
the things being made available under
Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> How about this, with indirect linkage:
> [GPLv2 program] li.w. [LGPLv2+ library] li.w. [LGPLv3+ library]
> Is there a canonical interpretation?
[Answered: yes there is, it breaks the GPL]
Thanks for clearing this up.
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend y
Hello,
I think this is a very simple question but I somehow failed at
search^Wfinding:
We know this is in not distributable:
[GPLv2 program] linked with [LGPLv3+ library]
How about this, with indirect linkage:
[GPLv2 program] li.w. [LGPLv2+ library] li.w. [LGPLv3+ library]
One way to look at it
On 2011-02-20 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Andreas Metzler writes:
[...]
> > I have the feeling that the discussion I started is an academic one
> > anyway. Nettle's public key library (libhogweed) uses and links against
> > libgmp, which is LGPLv3+. Therefore switc
On 2011-02-20 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> The Blowfish code in Nettle has already been re-implemented under
> LGPLv2+ but not released yet. I am working on re-implementing Serpent
> under LGPLv2+, however there are multiple and incompatible test vectors
> of Serpent and it is not clear which corresp
Hello,
GnuTLS upstream has added support for different crypto backends in
2.11.x and has chosen nettle as prefered backend (2.10.x is using
libgcrypt).
The main GnuTLS library itself and its dependency chain (libgcrypt11
libtasn1-3) are LGPLv2.1+.
nettle OTOH is LGPLv2.1+ except for two parts: T
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andreas Metzler:
>> I think that the resulting library /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3 does not
>> inherit the licenses of the build-system, and ends up as LGPLv2.1+
>> both in 0.3.x and 1.x. Can you confirm this?
> You should a
Hello,
The new version of libtasn (1.x) has changed licenses a tiny bit.
ftp://ftp.gnutls.org/pub/crypto/gnutls/libtasn1/
Previously with 0.3.x:
Build system, commandline tools and tests are GPLv2+. Actual library
source-code (*.c, *.h) is LGPLv2.1+
Now with 1.x:
Build system, commandline tools
Hello,
does the compat matrix for draft3 http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq still
apply to the released version of LGPLv3?
If it does it could cause quite some pain, since LGPLv3 libraries
could not be used in GPLv2-only programs.
cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His oth
Raul Miller debian.org> writes:
[...]
> I've taken a look at a copy from January, and it has the same problem.
> I don't know how far back we'd have to go to find a legally distributable
> copy.
Probably February or January 2002.
cu andreas
Brian Thomas Sniffen alum.mit.edu> writes:
> Raul Miller debian.org> writes:
[...]
> There's an additional problem: cdrtools, at least as Debian
> distributes it, uses some code for which Schilling is not the
> copyright holder. The HFS support, for example, is copyright Robert
> Leslie, and lic
Brian Thomas Sniffen alum.mit.edu> writes:
[...]
> On the other hand, I find this message interesting:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/19/111
>
> In particular, he seems to be relying on German "Authors' Rights", and
> claims to be in discussion with Debian people. That's nearly a month
> ago
Francesco Paolo Lovergine debian.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:04:32PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > The MySQL folks have a *new* statement, that should satisfy the DFSG, and
> > should be released w/ the next version of mysql.
[...]
> Pointers?
http://zak.greant.com:/licensin
Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
> A few programs link currently the old non-GPL libmysqlclient10 in order
> to retain compatibility with other free licenses which have known
> problems and require exceptions (e.g. ope
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
[...]
> > 1. The version number will be modified as follows:
> > a. The first 3 components of the version number
> > (i.e ..) will remain unchanged.
> > b. A new component will be appended to the version number to
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Diego Biurrun wrote:
[...]
>> No, seriously, the tarball supports being compiled into a .deb package
>> and supports many features (css, etc) that will most probably not make
>> it into Debian, even if MPlayer should.
>
> * Is it possible to arrange f
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I heard (on IRC) that someone wrote some DFSG-free WAD files for Quake
> -- some sort data set to facilitate a World War II battle simulation.
>
> If this fact is validated, the quake packages might be able to be moved
> to main. This is defini
On 30 Okt 2003 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 03:35:41PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> > * Begin restricted code for quality assurance.
>> > *
>> > * Warning: you are not allowed to modify or to remo
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:59:52PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Piotr Roszatycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The LICENSE.TXT file contains:
>
> > 2.1.1 Rights. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the
> > SOFTWARE as you received it, in any medium,
>
> There does not seem to
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:37:38PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 06:50:10PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:16:11PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > Package: libdvdread3
> > &
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Julien Delange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Package: wnpp
>>> Severity: wishlist
>>
>>> * Package name: dvdrtools
>>> Version :
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:51:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2003 12:04:55 GMT, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Actually we don't necessarily need that much, separating "100%
>> documenation" and "everything else" shou
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
>> So, if you find a definition which makes no difference between
>> software and documentation, please send it on this list.
>> There is a difference, even if someone doesn't want to see it.
> The
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 08:11:50AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> 3 MySQL 4: http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mysql-dfsg.html (note the
>>> current
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:54:41AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 01:26:35PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>> we have some news about #167747 which is potentially of interest
>> of all packages which links OpenSSL libraries and MySQL libraries.
>> MySQL libraries cu
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:05:21PM +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
>> 4.11.2002 pisze Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>> GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL's license, because the "advertising
>>> clause i
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:05:21PM +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
> 4.11.2002 pisze Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > GPL is incompatible with OpenSSL's license, because the "advertising
> > clause in OpenSSL's license would add an additional restriction on
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:36:21AM +, Paul Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 04:33:22PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[Bugreport: proftpd-mysql linksed with GPLed libmysqlclient10 and OpenSSL]
>> If I find time I'll try to find somebody to write a nice letter (or
>> c
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:25:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> cdrtools uses this library, too, the license is:
>>
>> The libedc_ecc sources are protected intellectual propert
Jens Peter Secher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have provided an unofficial deb package[1] of Moscow ML (an ML
> compiler) for some time now, but it has licensing problems.
>
> According[2] to Torsten Landschoff, there was a discussion of this
> matter on this list, but I cannot seem to find it.
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:25:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> cdrtools uses this library, too, the license is:
>
> The libedc_ecc sources are protected intellectual property
> of Heiko Eißfeldt.
>
> The libe
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:20:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> cdrecord has this:
[...]
>> | - The fact that cdrecord is linked against libedc_ecc does not
>> |make libedc_ecc licensed under GPL. Section 2 of the
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 10:37:08PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:35:13PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [libecc/edc is non-free]
>> In the meantime, the packages that include this code need to be moved
>> out of main.
> What is the best way
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:35:13PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 01:02:11AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
[libecc/edc is non-free]
>>> Actually, the author offered to relicense the problem code under
>>> the
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:21:01PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:25:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Perhaps Debian could solve this issue once and forever by paying 250
>> Euros to libedc_ecc's author, Heiko Eißfeldt?
> No.
&
Hello,
As you might have noticed cdrdao is dead at moment, it is GPLv2 but
requires the included non-free library libedc_ecc. See #162788.
Please take a look at
http://www.mail-archive.com/cdwrite@other.debian.org/index.html#03405
before you post any answers, the short sum up is not the whole stor
Hello!
Could tell me where I can find an explanatation for this:
mutt (1.2.5-3) stable unstable; urgency=high
* > Disabled linking with the GPL-incompatible openssl library.
If openssl is incompatible with GPL hasn't lynx-ssl got the same
problem?
Please Cc me beause I am not subscribed.
43 matches
Mail list logo
