In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
>The current generation of BSD system libraries are all licensed in a
>GPL-compatible manner (BSD license w/o advertising clause). So this is
>not a problem unless they try to link gcc against something that has not=20
>had the licensing clause removed, suc
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 12:38:10AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > The specific wording of the GPL
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
> > > against GPL-inc
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> To clarify Steve's otherwise excellent reply: recent gnutls ships with
> an OpenSSL compatibility library. The libraries are LGPL, so there
> should be no problem with compatibility.
>
> I haven't tried it yet, but I intend to with CUPS. I'd recommend you
> give it a try.
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:43:17PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > And those are really all the requirements that the LGPL imposes on
> > source code that is linked to the library to form an executable, but is
> > not part of the l
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And those are really all the requirements that the LGPL imposes on
> source code that is linked to the library to form an executable, but is
> not part of the library itself -- i.e., not much. It certainly doesn't
> require that the
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
> > against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
> > your GPL binar
Scripsit Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
> > against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
> > your GPL binary is not shipped toge
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
> The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
> against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
> your GPL binary is not shipped together with your libraries. Debian
> doe
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 19:28, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So the options are that you could secure a clarification of the GPL's OS
> exemption from the FSF, in the form of a new revision of the GPL, that
> permits what you're asking; or you can find a way to replace OpenSSL in
> the build with a library
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:24:35AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> after I have received a Reject from FTP Masters on the cadaver package,
> because it is GPL and linked against openssl, I opened up the Bug #163583 and
> contacted upstream.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no
Hello,
after I have received a Reject from FTP Masters on the cadaver package,
because it is GPL and linked against openssl, I opened up the Bug #163583 and
contacted upstream.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=163583
Here is the answer from Joe Orton, which basically t
12 matches
Mail list logo
