Hi everyone,
>On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a
>> new library in the next version. This library, ruby-zoom, is an LGPL Ruby
>> binding of libyaz. libyaz links to OpenSSL and is, as far as I can tell,
>> und
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Whoops, I misattributed that message. It's Brett Glass who wrote
>>that, NOT Theo de Raadt. :-(
>
>
> And after Googling Brett Glass briefly, I doubt he has much concrete
> evidence to back up his claim th
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an
> anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to
> his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments
> at http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/tech/0002/msg0017
On 6/10/05, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > You might also observe the comments at
> > http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
> > http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
> > from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> You might also observe the comments at
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
> from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing
> OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Do you know whether the NSS implementation is being certified at
source code level (a very unusual arrangement) using the sort of
maneuvers mentioned in the Linux Journal article on DMLSS?
I'm not able to say - it's not my area. If you are interested,
news://news.mozi
On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whoops, I misattributed that message. It's Brett Glass who wrote
> that, NOT Theo de Raadt. :-(
And after Googling Brett Glass briefly, I doubt he has much concrete
evidence to back up his claim that RMS plagiarized Symbolics code. If
h
On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an
> anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to
> his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments
> at http://www.monkey.org/ope
On 6/6/05, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The implementation of SSL in the Netscape NSS libraries is available
> under the GPL, and I believe certain versions of it have FIPS validation.
> http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/fips/
I'm delighted to hear that. It does not
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Pity the MySQL folks; Progress Software were the ones who encouraged
them to switch to the GPL in the first place, and when that
relationship went bad, they fell right in with the FSF. Switching to
YaSSL is going to cost them when it comes to DoD use of MySQL, since
som
And while we're at it, if you're curious what Eben Moglen gets out of
his relationship to the FSF, you might like to read
http://www.vidomi.com/fsfpop.php . Evidently GPL "violators" retain
him as counsel to write them letters saying that their linking-ban
circumvention schemes qualify as "mere ag
You might also observe the comments at
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing
OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets on whether there was a
quid pro quo
On 6/6/05, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And I wouldn't like to see Debian swept up in the apparent FSF
> > campaign to marginalize OpenSSL and its maintainers by threatening
> > legal action against anyone who links GPL code (F
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And I wouldn't like to see Debian swept up in the apparent FSF
> campaign to marginalize OpenSSL and its maintainers by threatening
> legal action against anyone who links GPL code (FSF copyrighted or
> not) to OpenSSL. (I have not personally bee
De: Steve Langasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The phrase "For an executable work, complete source code means all
> the source code for all modules it contains" appears in the text
> of GPL section *3*, which is not specific to "works based on the
> Program." Such lack of attention to license deta
On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The phrase "For an executable work, complete source code means all the
> source code for all modules it contains" appears in the text of GPL section
> *3*, which is not specific to "works based on the Program." Such lack of
> attention to lice
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 08:15:36AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have no reason to believe that the GPL's claim depends on the status of
> > derivative works; it is a condition of distributing binaries under the GPL
> > that the source
On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no reason to believe that the GPL's claim depends on the status of
> derivative works; it is a condition of distributing binaries under the GPL
> that the source to the work "and any components it contains" must be made
> available under
On 6/5/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > since the OpenSSL shim for GNU TLS was added to the GPL (not LGPL)
> > libgnutls-extra. (It's possible that it has since been moved into the
> > LGPL portion, but I don't think so.)
>
> The LGPL contains an ex
[Cc:ing the original poster, who posted to -mentors -- there's no reason to
expect that he's subscribed to -legal]
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:04:13AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will d
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (copied to debian-legal, where the discussion belongs; next person
> please cut debian-mentors)
>
> On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a
>> new library in the
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> since the OpenSSL shim for GNU TLS was added to the GPL (not LGPL)
> libgnutls-extra. (It's possible that it has since been moved into the
> LGPL portion, but I don't think so.)
The LGPL contains an explicit provision that allows relicensing
to GPL (section 3 LGPL).
(copied to debian-legal, where the discussion belongs; next person
please cut debian-mentors)
On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a
> new library in the next version. This library, ruby-zoom, is an LGPL Ruby
> bi
23 matches
Mail list logo
