Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

2007-07-20 Thread Simon Josefsson
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

2007-07-20 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Shane, On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote: > 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 d

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

2007-07-20 Thread Kern Sibbald
Hello Shane, On Thursday 19 July 2007 16:22, Shane M. Coughlan wrote: > Dear Steve > > 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, th

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

2007-07-20 Thread Thomas Dickey
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> That is incorrect. The FSF has granted OpenSSL license exceptions to >>> some software that links to OpenSSL. For example, GNU wget. >> >> That's not an example (unless you're intending to show a case where >> FSF allows itself to do things that it f

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

2007-07-20 Thread Simon Josefsson
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> As far as I know, the FSF doesn't forbid anyone to use GPL with an >> OpenSSL exception. > > That's entirely possible, but you haven't provided an example which > isn't contaminated by self-interest on the part of FSF. If you can > provide such an exam

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

2007-07-20 Thread Thomas Dickey
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What kind of example are you looking for? The example that you failed to provide in the posting to which I responded. (let's not get sidetracked) -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?

2007-07-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:40:46 -0700 Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:58:09PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > It is my opinion that the MPL license fails to meet the DFSG. > > This opinion seems to be shared by other debian-legal regulars: > > The MPL is an accepted license for ma

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?

2007-07-20 Thread Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
On 20/07/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ATATIAAWBI, bla, bla, ... WTFOMGBTWBBQ? - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?

2007-07-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:59:16 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could someone explain to me why firebird is in main? > > Because some ftpmaster hit approve, no-one found a bad enough > bug to change it and this plan didn't happen yet: > http://lists.debian.o

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?

2007-07-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:01:48 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > On 20/07/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ATATIAAWBI, bla, bla, ... > > WTFOMGBTWBBQ? If this means that you failed to "decode" my shorthand, it means: According To Anthony Towns, I Am Always Wrong Because IANA

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?

2007-07-20 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 19 juillet 2007 à 17:40 -0700, Anthony Towns a écrit : > On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:58:09PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > It is my opinion that the MPL license fails to meet the DFSG. > > This opinion seems to be shared by other debian-legal regulars: > > The MPL is an accepted license

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?

2007-07-20 Thread Dan Serban
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:58:09PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: >> It is my opinion that the MPL license fails to meet the DFSG. >> This opinion seems to be shared by other debian-legal regulars: > > The MPL is an accepted licen

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?

2007-07-20 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:03:37PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:59:16 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: > > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me why firebird is in main? > > Because some ftpmaster hit approve, no-one found a bad enough > > bug

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?

2007-07-20 Thread Anthony Towns
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:43:17PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > So where is the source for old versions stored? The alioth CVS is not > publicly available. On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:16:45PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > According To Anthony Towns, I Am Always Wrong Because IANADD/IANAL On Fri

Re: Why is firebird in Debian?

2007-07-20 Thread Mike Bird
Anthony Towns, MPL section 3.6 says in relevant part: > You may distribute Covered Code in Executable form only if the > requirements of Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 have been met > for that Covered Code, and if You include a notice stating that the > Source Code version of the Covered Code