> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:34:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > I don't think I've said anything new or strange about the GPL--it causes
> > > rewriting, it's designed to do so, and I think it's fair to acknowledge
> > > that.
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:27:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:27:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:34:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I don't think I've said anything new or strange about the GPL--it causes
> > rewriting, it's designed to do so, and I think it's fair to acknowledge
> > that.
>
> The
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:34:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I don't think I've said anything new or strange about the GPL--it causes
> rewriting, it's designed to do so, and I think it's fair to acknowledge that.
The GPL tends to cause rewriting to be done earlier than otherwise.
Copyright l
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:54:05AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> All licenses have "reimplementation waste" issues, in some form or
> another. Copyright law guarantees this.
At varying degrees; among free licenses, the GPL has some of the most
severe, and that's completely by design. I don't like
[Yeah, this is a stale thread -- I'm catching up, but it will
probably be days before I'm completely caught up. But no
one seems to have addressed this point.]
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:22:45PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The LGPL also has problems: it effectively prohibits use of code on
> p
A bit off-topic reply.
On 13-8-2004 13:18, "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded to my mail:
>> Likely, this is a moral aberration I got by being employed as
>> scientist.
>
> Maybe, but there is recently an increasing consideration of
> "scientific ethics" and "science and society" topics as w
On 2004-08-13 10:58:58 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For me, I did not make a distinction between "open source" and "free"
software. All I wanted is contribute whatever I do back to the
community.
There are other differences about how they've worked out too. I
summarise so
On 13-8-2004 06:33, "Josh Triplett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What annoys me propably most is that this simple licence is non-GPL
>> compatible, and any software written with this licence is not allowed to be
>> linked against GPL-software:
>>This code may be freely modified, copied and di
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> On 13-08-2004 0:09, "Josh Triplett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I think the issue of non-GPL-compatible licenses is certainly annoying,
>>but I don't really see any way around it without losing the copyleft.
>
> I see a theoretical and a practical way.
>
> First of all th
On 13-08-2004 0:09, "Josh Triplett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the issue of non-GPL-compatible licenses is certainly annoying,
> but I don't really see any way around it without losing the copyleft.
I see a theoretical and a practical way.
First of all the theoretical way:
I would ha
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:32:15AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>>On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>
>>>The kernel provides a public, documented, freely implementable interface
>>>of system calls. I don't know if you can replace it with something
>>>else, but
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>>Then any Windows program which uses undocumented Windows system calls (of
>>>which there are plenty) is a derivative work of Windows and can't be
>>>distributed without Microsoft's permission, at least until someone discovers
>>>
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Lots of people become disappointed in the GPL once they personally become
> the one wasting time reimplementing stuff due to incompatibilities that
> the GPL deliberately causes. I no longer use the GPL for my own work,
> preferring the MIT license--do what you want, don't w
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:38:50AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >
> >>The kernel provides a public, documented, freely implementable interface
> >>of system calls. I don't know if you can replace it with something
> >>else,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:32:15AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > The kernel provides a public, documented, freely implementable interface
> > of system calls. I don't know if you can replace it with something
> > else, but you should be able to.
>
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Then any Windows program which uses undocumented Windows system calls (of
> > which there are plenty) is a derivative work of Windows and can't be
> > distributed without Microsoft's permission, at least until someone discovers
> > the system calls and
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then any Windows program which uses undocumented Windows system calls (of
> which there are plenty) is a derivative work of Windows and can't be
> distributed without Microsoft's permission, at least until someone discovers
> the system calls and implements them
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>>The kernel provides a public, documented, freely implementable interface
>>of system calls. I don't know if you can replace it with something
>>else, but you should be able to.
>
> Then any Windows program which uses undocu
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The kernel provides a public, documented, freely implementable interface
> of system calls. I don't know if you can replace it with something
> else, but you should be able to.
Then any Windows program which uses undocumented Windows system calls (
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>In practice, there are some implicit boundaries that are generally
>agreed on in practice; for example, the kernel tends to act as a magic
>licensing firewall, such that GPL code isn't "linked" against the
>kernel or to other, unrelated processes. (I can't offer a legal
>gr
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take
> propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use
> it, and make them into two seperate downloads.
That's questionable. That would mean
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take
> propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use
> it, and make them into two seperate downloads.
This is the same thing; they link agai
* Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040809 13:42]:
> 2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably make
>the exception (without asking all possible contributors)
Not if he want to still use code for which he only has GPL as licence
allowing him to incorporate it.
On 10-08-2004 11:24, "Glenn Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For the record, this is my opinion:
>> If indeed, if I am ONLY distributing netatalk binary, linked to OpenSSL, but
>> no including OpenSSL. Then I have a program able to talk to OpenSSL is
>> present. However, it can just as well
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:56:08AM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> OK. I understand your argument, but I do not agree with it, and in fact
> would argue that this
parse error
> Since your opinion forms the majority, that is the end of that.
Well, the correct answers to legal issues are not, gener
On 10-8-2004 00:49, "Glenn Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I propose to built netatalk (with GPL licence) against OpenSSL (a non-GPL
>> licence) and distribute the whole with the GPL licence. How does that
>> violate the GPL?
>
> You can't distribute the whole under the GPL. You must adhe
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 01:33:09PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Personally I fear the upstream maintainers are not willing to change their
> > code for just this. After all, they already link with the technically
> > excellent OpenSSL library, which
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:06:39AM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> >> However, that being said, I claim it does not apply to this particular
> >> scenario! In this case, I suggested to distributed a binary of netatalk,
> >> including the UAMS linked with OpenSSL under GPL. To see if this is allowed
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> Personally I fear the upstream maintainers are not willing to change
> their code for just this. After all, they already link with the
> technically excellent OpenSSL library, which is indeed open source.
This may be the case, but that shouldn't prevent
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:50:30PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> I understand the low risk thing. However, in this case, I'd say it's worth
> the lawsuit. Though I have supported FSF, in the particular case I'd hope
> they lose :-) (I'm sure Richard Stallman doesn't agree with me).
If they lose t
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:29:21PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> On 09-08-2004 17:14, "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl.
> >
> > From a quick inspection, I don't think that will be true for all of a
> > netatalk binary compiled with openssl
On 9-8-2004 18:58, "Matthew Garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So if indeed netatalk contains executable code from openssl, then according
>> to #2, the redistributed binary must have the openssl-licence, and that is
>> not allowed. However, just
Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if indeed netatalk contains executable code from openssl, then according
> to #2, the redistributed binary must have the openssl-licence, and that is
> not allowed. However, just thinking about how dynamic libraries work, I
> belief there is no execut
Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Netatalk CAN be linked against openssl, to provide password encryption.
> The current package in sarge (testing) is not linked against OpenSSL, so all
> passwords are sent in clear text over the line.
Right. Which, arguably, makes a small part of netata
On 09-08-2004 18:25, "Brian Thomas Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is sad that despite all copyright holders are more then willing to
>> co-operate, there still is something holding them back.
>
> Yes -- the rest of the copyright holders. Bug the Samba/libiconv
> folks if you like, but
On 09-08-2004 17:14, "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl.
>
> From a quick inspection, I don't think that will be true for all of a
> netatalk binary compiled with openssl-related parts enabled. I think
> you realised this in your later message.
Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OpenSSL does give that permission:
> http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 (last paragraph of
> answer)
The OpenSSL license requires an ad for Eric Young on all software
using it. The GPL conflicts with that requirement.
> Netatalk is willin
On 09-08-2004 14:33, "Matthew Garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Nope. The same argument actually applies - if netatalk is a derivative
> of openssl (and if it's been coded against it, then the FSF would
> probably claim that it is) then it's illegal to distribute it in any
> form under the cur
Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally I fear the upstream maintainers are not willing to change their
> code for just this. After all, they already link with the technically
> excellent OpenSSL library, which is indeed open source.
If you're lucky, no code changes would be needed
Freek Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Has anything changed in the statement made to debian-legal in 2002?
It's still the case that the openssl license is considered incompatible
with the GPL.
> 2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably make
>the exception
On 2004-08-09 13:55:01 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl.
From a quick inspection, I don't think that will be true for all of a
netatalk binary compiled with openssl-related parts enabled. I think
you realised this in your later me
> On 2004-08-09 13:35:30 +0100 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
>
>> As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself
>> [...] then to change the code of netatalk to have it link to
>> gnutls.
>
> Fine. If you choose not to help others, that's your choice. I don't
> like it.
I could have just
On 2004-08-09 13:35:30 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself (which
is of
course perfectly fine, and allowed according to both the GPL and the
openssl
licence) then to change the code of netatalk to have it link to
gnutls
On 09-08-2004 14:33, "Matthew Garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Nope. The same argument actually applies - if netatalk is a derivative
> of openssl (and if it's been coded against it, then the FSF would
> probably claim that it is) then it's illegal to distribute it in any
> form under the cur
On 09-08-2004 14:18, "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know. I would probably look at porting to gnutls if no-one has
> tried that yet.
Yes, I've seen the suggestion before. It seems like a non-option to me.
As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself (which is of
co
On 2004-08-09 12:36:46 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably
make
the exception (without asking all possible contributors)
I think so.
3. Is there any way of getting netatalk with encrypted passwords in
sarge
On 09-08-2004 13:49, "Matthew Garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> GnuTLS has a openssl compatibility module.
Thanks!
Personally I fear the upstream maintainers are not willing to change their
code for just this. After all, they already link with the technically
excellent OpenSSL library, which
47 matches
Mail list logo
