Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-05 Thread Humberto Massa
Marek Habersack wrote, among other interesting stuff: [T]he thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib[1] in the Caudium[2] project. Looking at [2], I see clauses which make cryptlib not compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG. Huh? I see no such clauses[1], unless you're referin

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote: > What makes it more "serious" this time, is the heading - which says > "usage conditions" - that's a pretty strong statement. Yeah, but this is on a website, not the actual code. What matters are the copyright statements on the code and the license that

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Marek Habersack
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:06:20PM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled: > > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote: > > if we have two source files A and B producing object files A and B, > > with both of them calling (linking to in effect) some GPL API, A > > being derived from B (e.g. a C++ class

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote: > if we have two source files A and B producing object files A and B, > with both of them calling (linking to in effect) some GPL API, A > being derived from B (e.g. a C++ class that descends from a class > defined in B), A being MPL and B being GPL? If

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Marek Habersack
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:53:46AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled: > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled: > > > You (in general) can't incorporate code which is under a license that > > > is incompatible with the GPL to c

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Måns Rullgård
Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's fine, but read what does the copyright say exactly: > > Some files in this source package are under the Netscape Public License > Others, under the Mozilla Public license, and just to confuse you even > more, some are dual licensed MPL/GPL. > >

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Marek Habersack
> OK, the thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib[1] in the > Caudium[2] project. Looking at [2], I see clauses which make cryptlib not > compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG. The license is a BSD one, > that's clear, but the terms of use and usage conditions seem to restrict the

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote: > On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled: > > You (in general) can't incorporate code which is under a license that > > is incompatible with the GPL to create a derivative work under the GPL > > unless you yourself are the copyr

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Marek Habersack
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled: [snip] > > It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free > > software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in > > many projects it distributes (like mozilla, php, apache to name the > > most pro

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Marek Habersack
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:39:59PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled: > Marek Habersack wrote: > > >On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled: > >Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you > > > >[snip] > > > > > >>>It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Humberto Massa
Marek Habersack wrote: On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled: Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you [snip] It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in many projects it distri

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Marek Habersack
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled: Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you [snip] > > It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free > >software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in many > >projects > >it distributes (like mozil

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004, Marek Habersack wrote: > I know it belongs in debian-legal, but I'm not inclined enough to > join yet another mailing list which I will read few and far between, > so I will take the liberty to ask my question here. In cases like these, please set Mail-Followup-To: so you'll b

Re: licensing confusion

2004-03-04 Thread Humberto Massa
Marek Habersack wrote: Hey all, I know it belongs in debian-legal, but I'm not inclined enough to join yet another mailing list which I will read few and far between, so I will take the liberty to ask my question here. You are right, your questions are better asked in debian-legal, with a