begin Brian Behlendorf quotation:
> Making end-users aware of the origin of development is important for
> many people, though; there is even language regarding it in the GPL,
> so incompatibility is probably something that can be worked through.
Yes. It's a pity that the BSD license is
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 05:34:01PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Making end-users aware of the origin of development is important for many
> people, though; there is even language regarding it in the GPL, so
> incompatibility is probably something that can be worked through.
I agree.
Thanks,
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:25:19AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > > Rewriting the damned GPL to be compatible with the rest of the
> > > world might be a good place to start rewriting.
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If the damned GPL didn't have that "incompatibility" there would be
> >
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:25:19AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > Rewriting the damned GPL to be compatible with the rest of the world
> > might be a good place to start rewriting.
>
> If the damned GPL didn't have that "incompatibility" there would be no
>
I think it's highly ironic that the GPL has such grief with the
advertising clause, when it was the advertising clause that tripped up
AT&T during their lawsuit with UC Berkeley over Unix ten years ago. AT&T
was using BSD code and didn't follow that license, thus (in the
settlement) BSD 4.4-Lite
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 03:04:07PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> You're asserting that programs that talk via the loopback adaptor (or is it
> TCP/IP in general) must have compatible licenses. That's just not true.
> Debian uses stunnel and sslwrap to wrap all sorts of services in this manner
>
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 10:30:15AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you want to run a server with SSL, you can always fork() and then exec()
> > stunnel in the child to relay SSL connections in plaintext to the parent via
> > a listening port on th
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:45:37PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> stunnel might be a better tool for this, since it returns determinate error
> levels when there's a problem. Also, read() and write() calls on the socket
> FD that's talking to stunnel will fail in a manner similer to if a TCP/IP
>
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 09:30:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 03:44:21AM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > This isn't neccessary. It's possible to create two sockets with
> > socketpair(), and fork(). Then close FD's 0 and 1 in the child and clone one
> > of the socket FD's
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:25:19AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Rewriting the damned GPL to be compatible with the rest of the world
> might be a good place to start rewriting.
If the damned GPL didn't have that "incompatibility" there would be no
Debian, BSD would probably still require you signed a
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 03:44:21AM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> This isn't neccessary. It's possible to create two sockets with
> socketpair(), and fork(). Then close FD's 0 and 1 in the child and clone one
> of the socket FD's onto FD's 0 and 1 before closing it. Then you can exec()
> openssl s
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want to run a server with SSL, you can always fork() and then exec()
> stunnel in the child to relay SSL connections in plaintext to the parent via
> a listening port on the loopback adaptor.
RMS wouldn't like this. It obvious avoiding the GPL'
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then it's up to the authors of the programs needing the extra
> functionality to conform, not the one providing the
> functionality...
Except for the QT-case where Troll Tech was forced to change their
license to conform to the KDE license. (Ok, KDE wouldn'
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 10:35:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Which sounds easier: rewriting open ssl, or rewriting all GPLed programs
> which use sockets to communicate with other systems?
>
This isn't neccessary. It's possible to create two sockets with
socketpair(), and fork(). Then close
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 07:19:19PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > Well, it seems that OpenSSL's major crime here is that is isn't under the
> > One True License.
>
> Crime? You're the only one suggesting crime.
Then why the rewrite if >I< am the one sugges
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:44:18PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> functionality... If this were a reverse situation with the GPL providing
> the functional piece and a smallish set of incompatibly licensed software
> requiring the piece, would there be any talk of rewriting the GPL
> software?
>
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 07:19:19PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Well, it seems that OpenSSL's major crime here is that is isn't under the
> One True License.
Crime? You're the only one suggesting crime.
> So, yes, by your definition, there is only one way to do it, and
> OpenSSL isn't doing it that
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:44:18PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > Then it's up to the authors of the programs needing the extra
> > functionality to conform, not the one providing the functionality...
>
> Ah: there can be only one way to do it.
Well, it see
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:44:18PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Then it's up to the authors of the programs needing the extra
> functionality to conform, not the one providing the functionality...
Ah: there can be only one way to do it.
You learn something every day.
--
Raul
Branden, you have an understudy
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> begin John Galt quotation:
> > I know that serious consideration of anything over one line (hence
> > your prediliction for the one-line dismissal of anyone who you have
> > had disagreements with in the past) is bey
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:06:06PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of
> > the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw.
>
> The problem here is that some GPLed software has a use
begin John Galt quotation:
> I know that serious consideration of anything over one line (hence
> your prediliction for the one-line dismissal of anyone who you have
> had disagreements with in the past) is beyond your skills, but
> please don't remind me of it
Perhaps your time would
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 01:21:56PM +1300, Carey Evans wrote:
> I believe openssl inherits most of its GPL-incompatible clauses from
> ssleay. For example, I have an old copy of fcrypt.c, which is part of
> Eric Young's libdes, which includes:
>
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning feature
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:06:06PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of
> the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw.
The problem here is that some GPLed software has a use for the
functionality of the openssl software, but
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A tempting idea: start a project derived from ssleay, and reimplement
> openssl.
I believe openssl inherits most of its GPL-incompatible clauses from
ssleay. For example, I have an old copy of fcrypt.c, which is part of
Eric Young's libdes, which include
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:09:57PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:09:57PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > > > I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:06:06PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of
> the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw. Basically they
> take it as an "embrace and extend" move by the FSF. It's rather ironic
> coming
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > > I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL
> >
> > I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual pr
Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of
the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw. Basically they
take it as an "embrace and extend" move by the FSF. It's rather ironic
coming from me, but can't we all just forget the BSD/GPL bullshit for once
and ju
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL
>
> I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual property.
I hear that you can only deprogram a Randroid w
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:31:09AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> I hear the wheel was also not released under the GPL
I hear that the wheel is not considered intellectual property.
--
Raul
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:04:15PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> > > fetchmail is licensed under GPL license. What about conflict between GPL
> > > and BSD clauses from openssl? I mean the problem with mutt and ssl. What
> > > about lynx-ssl, links-ssl,
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:04:15PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> > fetchmail is licensed under GPL license. What about conflict between GPL
> > and BSD clauses from openssl? I mean the problem with mutt and ssl. What
> > about lynx-ssl, links-ssl, fetchmail-ssl and others?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > fetchmail is licensed under GPL license. What about conflict between GPL
> > and BSD clauses from openssl? I mean the problem with mutt and ssl. What
> > about lynx-ssl, links-ssl, fetchmail-ssl and others?
>
> I know nothing about this issue. Copying to -l
[Cc: to my personal address, please]
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:20:04PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I know nothing about this issue. Copying to -legal (and trimming Cc:
> list).
>From /usr/share/doc/mutt/changelog.Debian.gz
mutt (1.2.5-3) stable unstable; urgency=high
* > Removed non
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:04:15PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 06:51:13PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> [Discussing the future of fetchmail and SSL-enabled versions, there
> are two possibilities:]
>
> > (1) Have an SSL-disabled version in main and an SSL-enabled versi
37 matches
Mail list logo
