Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
>> luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
>> accept an entirely new license.
>
> I am told that FSF never grants exceptions so this is a hopeless path t
> "Ricardo Yanez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I've been approached by what seems to be an attorney from a Chilean
>> NGO called "Derechos Digitales" (http://www.derechosdigitales.org/),
>> pointing out that a financial newspaper called "Diario Financiero"
>> (http://www.elfinanciero.cl/) is us
On Saturday 14 July 2007 11:03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
> >> luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
> >> accept an entirely new license.
> >
> > I
Le samedi 14 juillet 2007 à 12:09 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> Well, it is pretty general purpose. None of the FSF code is network or TLS
> related. The FSF files involved are:
>
> src/lib/fnmatch.h FSF
> src/lib/fnmatch.c FSF
> src/lib/enh_fnmatch.h FSF
> src/lib/enh_fnmatch.c FSF (f
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
>>> luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
>>> accept an entirely new license.
>>
>> I am told that FSF ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I agree that the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the OpenSSL license, in the
> sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
> GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no more easily
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
What you are doing is saying "gpe-cash contains some code that is '2
or later' and some code that is '3 only' or '3 or later', therefore 3
is the only licence that is valid for gpe-cash".
To re-iterate. You are NOT changing
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michelle Konzack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I have coded some programs which are explicit under GPL v2 since I do
not like v3 (I have my reasons) but I am using a LIB which is currently
under LGPL v2.
Now the new version of this LIB is v3.
What should I do?
DON
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
If your GPLv2 program links to an LGPLv3 library, then you don't need to
give a monkeys.
The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be
independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your
program is GPL (any version), then it is compati
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 10:20:29PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michelle Konzack
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >I have coded some programs which are explicit under GPL v2 since I do
> >not like v3 (I have my reasons) but I am using a LIB which is currently
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be
independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your
program is GPL (any version), then it is compatible with any LGPL
library (any version).
I t
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now, when
> > we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the archive, we'll no longer be able to
> > distribute GPLv2-only compiled execu
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now,
> > > when we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the a
13 matches
Mail list logo
