On Thu, 10 Sep 2026, Bastian Germann wrote: > On 9/9/26 08:43, Andrew McMillan wrote:
>> In that case you will need to do the case-by-case review of those >> files. If the old license still applies it is clearly not DFSG-free. I would like to see what consideration was given to the argument that dietlibc received the files as part of the product dietlibc, under GPL. That is, very specifically, my interpretation is: the licence specifically grants: | […] Users | * may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized | * to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or | * program developed by the user. My argument: Debian received this particular copy of Sun RPC as part of dietlibc, under GPL, from Fefe. While the licence requires… | * Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for | * unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape | * media and as a part of the software program in whole or part. … that this preceise remark be kept, which is not in conflict with the terms of the GPL, dietlibc is actually under GPL so its terms apply, which are DFSG-free enough. That is: while we must retain the notice, the terms that *actually* apply to the modified files is the GPL. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── More practically: the linked posts… • https://web.archive.org/web/20260605022846/https://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html • https://web.archive.org/web/20090328132957/http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/old_code_and_old_licenses … are so sparse in information that it is impractical to impossible for anyone to apply the relicencing findings to any other code. In particular, you’d need to have a tarball with all the relicenced files and the new licence. I looked at OpenSolaris, but that is not helpful here, because it has them under CDDL. (They did mention they used OpenSolaris, but only to figure out the authors.) There’s also merely a saying that they were relicenced, but not the details (scope, new licence, etc). If there is such a tarball (maybe involve both Simon Phipps and “spot” to get one), then we can look at which files match most closely, diff, ask potential coauthors, etc. (if the difference is small enough, we get lucky; otherwise, for dietlibc, the prospect is not well, and in that case, I’d just rip out the entire affected files and break users) bye, //mirabilos -- (gnutls can also be used, but if you are compiling lynx for your own use, there is no reason to consider using that package) -- Thomas E. Dickey on the Lynx mailing list, about OpenSSL
