In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:51:10 -0700, "Ted
Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tedm> >If your point is that the "openssl authors" don't want to
tedm> >change the license because Eric (presumably) doesn't want to
tedm> >change the license, then there is nowhere lef
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Geoff Thorpe
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 5:47 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>If your point is that the "openssl authors" don'
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kyle Hamilton
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:26 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>On 4/17/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As if it weren't annoying enough to see the license getting (re)debated,
> despite the fact there's fsck all that can be done about it as things
> stand,
What we really need is to somehow get some of Eric Young and Tim
Hudson's time in person, mayb
On 4/17/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The original copyright holder gave the FSF this right when they used
> the GPL on their code, because the GPL isn't simply a statement of
> principles, it is a copyrighted document of the FSF that the original
> copyright holder only has
On April 17, 2006 06:48 pm, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Since SSLeay is part of OpenSSL, Eric Young is by definition an
> OpenSSL author.
Egads man, would you please stop twatting on like this?! This is truly
truly painful to watch. As if it weren't annoying enough to see the
license getting (re
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:02:49 -0700, "Ted
Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tedm> >Not at all, I spoke for myself (I do believe I said that
tedm> >clearly enough), and only reported what I have seen happening
tedm> >within the group.
tedm>
tedm> Which isn't re
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard
>Levitte - VMS Whacker
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:20 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>Not at all, I spoke for my
> > Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support the claim
> >that the FSF can
> >issue a variance for software whose copyright has not been
> >assigned to it?
> The original copyright holder gave the FSF this right when they used
> the GPL on their code, because the GPL isn't simply a stat
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:48:16 -0700, "Ted
Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tedm> Since SSLeay is part of OpenSSL, Eric Young is by definition
tedm> an OpenSSL author.
That's a matter of definition, and I don't agree. Eric hasn't written
one byte of OpenSSL
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Schwartz
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:47 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: RE: Licenses...
>
>
>>No, it is not. There is a problem, and that is why the
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard
>Levitte - VMS Whacker
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:41 AM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>In message <[EMAIL PR
> >That single project may itself link to many other
> >projects. That single
> >project could be the Linux kernel itself.
> So a single Linux system that is connected to the Internet which can
> link to every host on the Internet, can change the software licensing
> on every computer in the worl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:52:33 -0700, Tyler
MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tylerm> Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tylerm> > And here, you pretend to know everything that's going on behind the
tylerm> > scene. We (well, the OpenSSL core
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:44:33 -0700, "Ted
Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tedm> If the OpenSSL authors (you included) wanted to change the
tedm> license you all would have done so, it's not like you don't have
tedm> write access to the source and cannot chang
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard
>Levitte - VMS Whacker
>Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:45 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>Oi, you're quite th
=
What's next after open source?
=
Kyle Hamilton wrote:
Not all who wander are lost.
Not all who are idealistic are fascist.
Not all who are afraid of being forgotten are Ozymandias.
And not all who work on open-source projects have the patience or will
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:29:12 -0700, "Ted
Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tedm> Binary distributions have one purpose - to boot up the system so
tedm> you can get a full source tree on it and start building! It's
tedm> no fun otherwise! :-)
You know, if tha
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kyle Hamilton
>Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 12:30 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>Why not an advertising clause exemptio
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tyler MacDonald
>Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 10:10 AM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
> I'm not say
Oi, you're quite the speaker, aren't ya?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:28:47 -0700, "Ted
Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tedm> OpenSSL needs to stick with the license that most closely
tedm> reflects the philosophy of it's authors. That is, right now, an
tedm> "a
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Schwartz
>Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 3:47 AM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: RE: Licenses...
>
>
>
>> >I still find this argument incomprehensible. Are
> All the GPL requires is that binary distributions of a GPL'd software
> must include the source, or include a written offer to make the source
> available for a nominal copying charge; it also requires that the
> license be included so that the person licensing the program knows
> that they have
Not all who wander are lost.
Not all who are idealistic are fascist.
Not all who are afraid of being forgotten are Ozymandias.
And not all who work on open-source projects have the patience or will
to keep slamming our horns together.
Honestly, we have better things to do with our time than worry
I detect an attempt to propose a compromise (a sensible one, says me, and
I work for a proprietory software developer). For shame! :-)
--|
John L. Ries |
Salford Systems |
Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 |
or (435)865-5723 |
---
On 4/14/06, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > listen to yourself, your speaking as though software should be distributed
> > and sold exactly like Windows server products are: aimed at the
> > administrators who are just pretending to be ad
Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> listen to yourself, your speaking as though software should be distributed
> and sold exactly like Windows server products are: aimed at the
> administrators who are just pretending to be adminstrators, and who are
> not real professionals.
> Thank goo
> >I still find this argument incomprehensible. Are you
> >suggesting that the
> >sole purpose the FreeBSD people develop software is to create this
> >wonderful, powerful "FreeBSD" project? And that anything that doesn't
> >benefit the project with the name "FreeBSD" somehow doesn't matter?
> It
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kyle Hamilton
>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:51 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>I have an open-source project. It m
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tyler MacDonald
>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:45 AM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROT
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Schwartz
>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 7:33 AM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: RE: Licenses...
>
>
> I still find this argument incomprehensible. Are you
On 4/13/06, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An end user can download freeradius and postgresql and openssl and
> > build all of them and link them together, without violating any licensing
> > clauses.
>
> End users aren't expecte
Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An end user can download freeradius and postgresql and openssl and
> build all of them and link them together, without violating any licensing
> clauses.
End users aren't expected to know how to use build tools or even
have them installed on th
> For 30 some-odd years nobody had a problem with the BSD's "advert"
> clause in using it's software. Then the GPL came along and insisted
> on FreeBSD changing the license so they could use it - and the
> quid-pro-quo
> was the reason FreeBSD was to do this was that it would get so many
> benefi
I didn't want to get involved in a licensing discussion here, but there
are some factual errors about "early history" that should be corrected.
The original 'advertising clause' was from the UCal Regents, not FreeBSD
organization et al. They were worried about their name being used
inappropria
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kyle Hamilton
>Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:51 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>On 4/12/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tyler MacDonald
>Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:48 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTEC
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Schwartz
>Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:10 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: RE: Licenses...
>
>
>
>> This was the same argument used by the Linux pe
On 4/12/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey I have an idea. Why doesen't the OpenSSL community tell the GPL
> to modify it's license to be compliant to the OpenSSL license? That
> seems
> to be a mirror of what the GPL people are demanding. What's sauce for
> the goose is sauce
Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I still have not seen from the "pro-advertisement-clause-removal"
> camp is a logical explanation of why someone cannot use OpenSSL because of
> the so-called "advertising-clause"
If someone is a development community, then no, there's no
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard
>Levitte - VMS Whacker
>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:43 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
> I've come into t
> This was the same argument used by the Linux people to get the University
> of California, Berkeley to revoke it's "advert clause"
>
> However, once that happened the GPL people simply grabbed what bits they
> wanted and ran off. Berkeley software hasn't seen any additional
> attention or
> ben
Hi Jeffrey, long time!
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:28:22 -0400, Jeffrey
Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
jaltman> Tyler MacDonald wrote:
jaltman>
jaltman> > And it's not always even that simple: for example, the
jaltman> > freeradius project's postgresql plugin li
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Christopher Fowler wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 17:31, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Once more, very fuzzy. If your code is a loader then how am I gonna load
my stuff into your device without it? All I have to do is take the
firmware
image for your device, separate out your loa
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 17:31, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Once more, very fuzzy. If your code is a loader then how am I gonna load
> my stuff into your device without it? All I have to do is take the
> firmware
> image for your device, separate out your loader, replace the GPL with
> my own GPL, and
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:51:58 -0700, Tyler
MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tyler> However, the descussion about how OpenSSL should interact with
tyler> GPL software has been quite valuable.
Yes, I entirely agree with you on that.
Cheers,
Richard
-
Please
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, boys and girls, however much I actually enjoy discussing the
> intricaties of licenses out the wazoo, I don't think a discussion on
> how to interpret the GPL belongs in this list. Let's move along,
> shall we?
+1... However,
OK, boys and girls, however much I actually enjoy discussing the
intricaties of licenses out the wazoo, I don't think a discussion on
how to interpret the GPL belongs in this list. Let's move along,
shall we?
Cheers,
Richard
-
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Christopher Fowler
>Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 5:23 AM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 08:07 -0400, Wes Kussmaul wrote:
&g
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 08:07 -0400, Wes Kussmaul wrote:
> Are you suggesting that if you embed software in a hardware product,
> it's no longer software?
>
> The GPL most certainly applies to embedded versions of software
> products
> which it licenses.
>
> If that were not true then I would be
David Schwartz wrote:
Take for example the ActionTec DSL modem, this is sold by ActionTec and
runs embedded Linux... Yet you cannot obtain the modified GNU code from the
ActionTec website
as required by GPL... or thttpd, but not the modified bootloader code or the
black box
interface itself, s
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tyler MacDonald
>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 7:43 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
> And as a result, OpenSSL will be used by even more piec
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Schwartz
>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 4:41 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Subject: RE: Licenses...
>
>
>
>> Take for example the ActionTec DSL modem, this
> Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > And it's not always even that simple: for example, the freeradius
> > project's postgresql plugin links against the postgresql client library
> > (naturally). Postgresql may or may not link against OpenSSL. If it does,
> > then the freeradius-postgresql plugin is
Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And it's not always even that simple: for example, the freeradius
> > project's postgresql plugin links against the postgresql client library
> > (naturally). Postgresql may or may not link against OpenSSL. If it does,
> > then the freeradius-postgr
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> And it's not always even that simple: for example, the freeradius
> project's postgresql plugin links against the postgresql client library
> (naturally). Postgresql may or may not link against OpenSSL. If it does,
> then the freeradius-postgresql plugin is breaking
> Take for example the ActionTec DSL modem, this is sold by ActionTec and
> runs embedded Linux. It is the standard modem Qwest sends out for DSL
> there
> are probably 100,000 or more of these in service in the Western United
> States.
> Yet you cannot obtain the modified GNU code from the Actio
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 09 Apr 2006 11:04:12 -0700, Tyler
MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tyler> I think that these programmers could be more happy and productive
tyler> and get back to moving our planet forward if they didn't have
tyler> to spend so much time thinking about li
Hi Eric,
I hope you leave the license alone.
I have seen increasing examples of GPL code used in embedded products,
and
for all the philosophizing the GPL people do, they roll over when it
comes to suing
people.
Take for example the ActionTec DSL modem, this is sold by ActionTec and
runs
59 matches
Mail list logo
