Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
> > > and go from there.
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:20:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Where to? What exactly is served
On 21 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> At the same time, it is wise to bend over backwards to
> make clear that one is disclaiming any implied warranty that might
> exist.
This depends which nation's law you are under. As I understood German law,
any clause if at a whole void, that disclai
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
> > and go from there.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:20:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Where to? What exactly is served by the whole discussion?
If, as he claims, there's
"none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not sure I understand the significance of the difference here and what
> "issue" I am confusing - perhaps you can enlighten me on your position.
> Copyright infringement may occur whether you fail to comply with a license
> or whether you breach a contract
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
> and go from there.
Where to? What exactly is served by the whole discussion?
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs
> "Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:54:00PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> When I first read Young's clause, my impression was that it meant to
> apply to derived works, so one could not produce a GPL'd varient of
> OpenSSL. I do not know if this is truly the case.
Its main purpose appears to be an expressi
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 07:12:01AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> I daresay that I, Aaron, and a number of other regulars here (and on
> license-discuss@opensource.org) are familiar enough with the usual sort
> of copyright law, and how licensing operates as a legal mechanism under
> it, to see that Yo
> > Well I think I know a little bit of law as an attorney. I hoped I was
> > providing useful information. I'd be happy to go away if you prefer.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:06:35AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You seem out of your depth here. A tax attorney, for example, may be
> exceedi
"Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see how "contract issues are entirely moot". Certainly at
> least the terms of the license must be interpreted to determine if
> they are complied with. AFAIK copyright law does not deal with such
> issues. Rather contract law has a long establ
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: "Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs
Date: 21 Jun 2001 09:48:34 -0700
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 05:49:42PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It not only has the obnoxious advertising clauses, but it also has the
> > Apache style "trademark" clauses (Products derived from this software may
> > not be called [some
"Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An additional basis for the clause is to turn a default rule into a
> breach of contract/license issue, which can have different thresholds
> of proof, elements of breach, etc. than relying on copyright
> infringement.
Though it's a public license, so
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
From: Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:12:01 -0700
[Aaron Lehmann kindly posted my private comment to hi
[Aaron Lehmann kindly posted my private comment to him that Eric A.
Young's no-relicensing clause in his OpenSSL code is, as Aaron
articulately puts it, "a no-op".]
begin Anthony Towns quotation:
> I specifically asked RMS about this in private mail before bringing up
> this thread: he indicated
Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It not only has the obnoxious advertising clauses, but it also has the
> Apache style "trademark" clauses (Products derived from this software may
> not be called [some words]).
Trademark clauses are a pain in the butt, but remember that they don't
impe
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:25:36PM -0600, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 01:32:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > We're based in Canada - which I had hoped meant the export problem didn't
> > > apply to us.
> > (It does)
> Could you elaborate?
It does mean the export probl
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> In summary, the clause:
> * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
>
> * derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply
> be
> * copied and put under another dist
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Unfortunately, there's more. A few years ago, OpenSSL became
> maintained by Tim Hudson and others. Their contributions are licensed
> under the original BSD license, *with the advertising clause*.
Minor clarification: The original l
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 01:32:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > We're based in Canada - which I had hoped meant the export problem didn't
> > apply to us.
>
> (It does)
Could you elaborate?
> > We wanted our libraries to be LGPL and tools to be GPL but one of our most
> > basic libraries link
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,
> and someone (actually someones, probably) mentioned that the OpenSSL has
> some problems, both patent related (it includes IDEA, and some other
> patented algo
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:
>
> althea fetchmail-ssl
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
