Le dimanche 30 septembre 2007 à 20:24 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> > > However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me.
> > > I prefer the following which is a modification of my prior license that
> > > was accepted by Debian. The modification makes my prior license a
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 17:43, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
> Hi Kern
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > =
> > Exception to the GPL:
> > Linking:
> > Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted
> > under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that
> > a
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:22, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 25 septembre 2007 à 15:14 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> > Thanks for looking up the above -- very interesting.
> >
> > However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me.
> > I prefer the following which
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 16:03, MJ Ray wrote:
> Shane Martin Coughlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > > Exception to the GPL:
> > > Linking:
> > > Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted=20
> > > under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries,
Shane Martin Coughlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Exception to the GPL:
> > Linking:
> > Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted=20
> > under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that=
> are
> > required for its proper func
Le mardi 25 septembre 2007 à 15:14 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> Thanks for looking up the above -- very interesting.
>
> However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me. I
> prefer the following which is a modification of my prior license that was
> accepted by Debia
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> =
> Exception to the GPL:
> Linking:
> Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted
> under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are
> required for its proper functioning, providing the license and hence source
>
Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> =
> Exception to the GPL:
> Linking:
> Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted
> under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL,
> that are required for its proper functioning, providing the license
> and h
Hello Shane,
On Monday 24 September 2007 18:08, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
> Hi Kern
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > As far as I can see, the project has the following ways to proceed:
> > 1. Add a modification to our existing license that permits linking with
> > OpenSSL.
>
> I think this is the si
This one time, at band camp, Shane Martin Coughlan said:
> Hi Kern
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > As far as I can see, the project has the following ways to proceed:
> > 1. Add a modification to our existing license that permits linking with
> > OpenSSL.
>
> I think this is the simplest clause, and
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> As far as I can see, the project has the following ways to proceed:
> 1. Add a modification to our existing license that permits linking with
> OpenSSL.
I think this is the simplest clause, and it keeps well within the
precedent already accepted by the Bacula develo
Hello,
To follow up on this: as of 5 September, Bacula source code is free of third
party copyrighted code that is GPLed. Doing so, did unfortunately create a
good deal of instability, which we are dealing with. However, for the future
(probably version 3.0.0), we will be able to use OpenSSL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Michael, Anthony
I just wanted to let you know that I have forwarded your comments and
feedback regarding GPLv3, OpenSSL and System Libraries to Brett Smith,
licence engineer at FSF. :)
Regards
Shane
- --
Shane Coughlan
FTF Coordinator
Free Soft
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 03:12:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> In particular, going by the GPLv3:
> ] The "System Libraries" of an executable work [...]
So I've done the "here's what the license says, let's parse it to see
if we can extract any meaning" thing, but I haven't done it the other
way
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 05:10:32PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> Following comments on FSF's position regarding OpenSSL as a System
> Library in Debian, Brett Smith at FSF sent the following message:
>
> ===
> I apologize for my misunderstandings about OpenSSL's status in Debian,
> and appreci
On Tuesday 24 July 2007 10:09, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> RE: The FSF position regarding OpenSSL as a system library in Debian.
>
> > ===
> >
> > We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
> > The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
> > on
Shane M. Coughlan writes:
> Dear all
>
> Following comments on FSF's position regarding OpenSSL as a System
> Library in Debian, Brett Smith at FSF sent the following message:
>
> ===
>
> I apologize for my misunderstandings about OpenSSL's status in Debian,
> and appreciate the corrections. Howe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear all
Following comments on FSF's position regarding OpenSSL as a System
Library in Debian, Brett Smith at FSF sent the following message:
===
I apologize for my misunderstandings about OpenSSL's status in Debian,
and appreciate the corrections.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
RE: The FSF position regarding OpenSSL as a system library in Debian.
> ===
>
> We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
> The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
> only code that accompani
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What kind of example are you looking for?
The example that you failed to provide in the posting to which I responded.
(let's not get sidetracked)
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As far as I know, the FSF doesn't forbid anyone to use GPL with an
>> OpenSSL exception.
>
> That's entirely possible, but you haven't provided an example which
> isn't contaminated by self-interest on the part of FSF. If you can
> provide such an exam
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That is incorrect. The FSF has granted OpenSSL license exceptions to
>>> some software that links to OpenSSL. For example, GNU wget.
>>
>> That's not an example (unless you're intending to show a case where
>> FSF allows itself to do things that it f
Hello Shane,
On Thursday 19 July 2007 16:22, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> Dear Steve
>
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I agree that the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the OpenSSL license, in
the
> > sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
> > GPLv3 work. However, th
Hi Shane,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I agree that the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the OpenSSL license, in the
> > sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
> > GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 d
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
accept an
I agree with AJ's statements and add only this:
Apt is priority important. That is the same priority as openssl.
Apt has relativly few revese dependencies (it appears to have less than
openssl does). But libapt is without any doubt
a system library under the GPLv3. It accompanies apt which is wi
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> > We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
> > The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
> > only code that accompanies genuin
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> ===
> We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
> The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
> only code that accompanies genuinely fundamental components of the
> system.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Well, it is pretty general purpose. None of the FSF code is network or TLS
> related. The FSF files involved are:
> src/lib/fnmatch.h FSF
> src/lib/fnmatch.c FSF
> src/lib/enh_fnmatch.h FSF
> src/lib/enh_fnmatch.c FSF (f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Steve
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I agree that the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the OpenSSL license, in the
> sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
> GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no
On Monday 16 July 2007 17:15, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> Hi Kern
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Yes, and in addition, after Josselin's email, I did a bit of research, and
for
> > at least one of the files that we use (fnmatch.c), the FSF license was
> > changed from GPL to LGPL sometime in 2004 the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Yes, and in addition, after Josselin's email, I did a bit of research, and
> for
> at least one of the files that we use (fnmatch.c), the FSF license was
> changed from GPL to LGPL sometime in 2004 the best I can tell.
On Monday 16 July 2007 10:57, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> Hi Kern
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Saturday 14 July 2007 11:03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> That is incorrect. The FSF has granted OpenSSL license exceptions to
> >> some software that links to OpenSSL. For example, GNU wget.
> >
> > I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Saturday 14 July 2007 11:03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> That is incorrect. The FSF has granted OpenSSL license exceptions to
>> some software that links to OpenSSL. For example, GNU wget.
>
> Interesting. Shane woul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I agree that the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the OpenSSL license, in the
> sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
> GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no more easily
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
>>> luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
>>> accept an entirely new license.
>>
>> I am told that FSF ne
Le samedi 14 juillet 2007 à 12:09 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> Well, it is pretty general purpose. None of the FSF code is network or TLS
> related. The FSF files involved are:
>
> src/lib/fnmatch.h FSF
> src/lib/fnmatch.c FSF
> src/lib/enh_fnmatch.h FSF
> src/lib/enh_fnmatch.c FSF (f
On Saturday 14 July 2007 11:03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
> >> luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
> >> accept an entirely new license.
> >
> > I
Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
>> luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
>> accept an entirely new license.
>
> I am told that FSF never grants exceptions so this is a hopeless path t
Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like a tit-for-a-tat clause so that those who modify it and
> distribute
> it are obligated to publish their modifications. The MIT license does not
> provide that.
On the other hand, the MIT license permits even use by the objectionable
perso
Le vendredi 13 juillet 2007 à 07:20 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> > Then, unless I have seriously misunderstood the reworded system
> > libraries exception, I think relicensing Bacula under the GPLv3 (or
> > dual-licensing under v2 and v3) should be fine for Debian.
>
> Sorry, but could you run
On Friday 13 July 2007 01:31, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 23:42 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> > > This flaw of the GPLv3 is at least good for something. If your GPL
> > > software can now be included in the HP-UX or AIX distribution, it can
> > > also be included in Debia
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 23:42 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> > This flaw of the GPLv3 is at least good for something. If your GPL
> > software can now be included in the HP-UX or AIX distribution, it can
> > also be included in Debian.
>
> Well, I don't consider the above a flaw. The flaw (res
On Thursday 12 July 2007 22:59, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 20:18 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> > It seems a real pity to me that the GPL is so restrictive -- it should
make my
> > life as a programmer easier, but it has in fact made it harder.
>
> The main point of th
On Thursday 12 July 2007 22:52, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 16:41 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> > How do we get there?
> > It seems to me that there are a number of alternatives:
> >
> > 1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is working on this, but
it
> > i
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 20:18 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> It seems a real pity to me that the GPL is so restrictive -- it should make
> my
> life as a programmer easier, but it has in fact made it harder.
The main point of the GPL is not to make your life easier, but to
prevent your code
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 16:41 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> How do we get there?
> It seems to me that there are a number of alternatives:
>
> 1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is working on this, but it
> is not a small nor an easy project. And though it is something I cons
"Kern Sibbald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Shane,
Bacula is nearing the end of a development cycle and the next version will
be
released in a matter of weeks, so I would like to revisit the problem that
recently came up with the Bacula license. My purpo
On Thursday 12 July 2007 18:06, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like
Linus, I
> > don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula
> > compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with
On Thursday 12 July 2007 18:06, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> Hi Kern
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > What I would like:
> > I would like Bacula to be able to be freely used by all distros without
> > licensing problems with any Open Source software including OpenSSL.
>
> > 1. Convert Bacula to use gnut
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 06:06:14PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> > 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus,
> > I
> > don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula
> > compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Kern
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> What I would like:
> I would like Bacula to be able to be freely used by all distros without
> licensing problems with any Open Source software including OpenSSL.
> 1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is w
Kern Sibbald wrote:
2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I
don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula
compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me
to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is
Hello Shane,
Bacula is nearing the end of a development cycle and the next version will be
released in a matter of weeks, so I would like to revisit the problem that
recently came up with the Bacula license. My purpose is not to debate the
issues but rather come up with a plan forward for Bacu
54 matches
Mail list logo
