On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 03:57:48PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 09:37:23PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > > Unfortunatly, it is not clear that openssl is normally distributed
> > > with the other compone
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 04:03:25PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> hmmm, wasn't non-us on different servers? If so, would that work? (does
> it still even exist?)
That was the (admittedly rather specious) argument under which we
justified ignoring this problem before. With the demolition of no
Don Armstrong wrote:
However, I've maintained that even if that is the case, we still can't
activate this clause because OpenSSL is not "normally distributed (in
either source or binary form) with the major components".
That seems to be the easier half. The major components of Debian are
typi
hmmm, wasn't non-us on different servers? If so, would that work? (does
it still even exist?)
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> /unless that component itself accompanies the executable/." (my emphasis)
>
> As I understand it, in a Debian distribution, anything that could
> qualify for the exception 'accompanies the executable' by virtue of
> being on the same CD/web server/etc. I
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>>Unfortunatly, it is not clear that openssl is normally distributed
>>>with the other components, as we do not require that people
>>>actually install openssl.
>>
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Unfortunatly, it is not clear that openssl is normally distributed
> > with the other components, as we do not require that people
> > actually install openssl.
>
> Except, "we do not requi
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 03:57:48PM +1100, tbble wrote:
(Some stuff, but forgot to change the Mail-Followup-To header)
I would still like to CC'd on this discussion. Sorry for my
mistake.
--
---
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
7th year CompSci/As
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 09:37:23PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Paul Hampson wrote:
> > > As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
> > > archive is considered to be distributed with Debian,
I wrote:
> > However, non-free is not part of Debian (as per the social contract)
> > so it would be OK to put GPL'd programs that depend on OpenSSL into
> > non-free?
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Unfortunatly, it is not clear that openssl is normally distribute
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Paul Hampson wrote:
> > As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
> > archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
> > the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
> >
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Paul Hampson wrote:
> As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
> archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
> the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
> doesn't apply since the application also comes with the OS.
> (In GPL's t
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 02:21:24AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> However, non-free is not part of Debian (as per the social
> contract) so it would be OK to put GPL'd programs that
> depend on OpenSSL into non-free?
The GPL special exception doesn't care about "part of" vs. "not part of".
What mat
* Paul Hampson:
> As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
> archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
> the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
> doesn't apply since the application also comes with the OS.
> (In GPL's terms, the OS comes with
14 matches
Mail list logo
