Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 09:21:22AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > I just realized that the problem doesn't exist, since the fuse _library_ > > is under LGPL (since version 1.1). The kernel module is obviously > > GPL, but nobody links against that except the kernel. > > Eeks. That means that Debian's copyright file is not complete... > Sorry for bothering you, Bartosz should update it. Yes I forgot to update copyright file somewhere between 1.0 and 1.1 version. New FUSE packages (2.2-2) has correct copyright file. In addition it has been accepted by ftp-master yesterday, so it should be available in sid today. So if anyone wants to package encfs now has ability to do so ;) regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 08:28:31AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > That would be better. I am not the fuse maintainer (he is be'ing Cc'ed), > > but normaly I would request at least a GPG signed mail for license > > changes. > > I just realized that the problem doesn't exist, since the fuse _library_ > is under LGPL (since version 1.1). The kernel module is obviously > GPL, but nobody links against that except the kernel. I wonder how could I miss that. I adopted fuse when the newest version in Debian was 1.0, and probably updated it and overlooked new license for library. I'll upload new package with correct copyrights. Sorry. regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
#include * Miklos Szeredi [Mon, Mar 07 2005, 08:28:31AM]: > I just realized that the problem doesn't exist, since the fuse _library_ > is under LGPL (since version 1.1). The kernel module is obviously > GPL, but nobody links against that except the kernel. Eeks. That means that Debian's copyright file is not complete... Sorry for bothering you, Bartosz should update it. Regards, Eduard. -- "After watching my newly-retired dad spend two weeks learning how to make a new folder, it became obvious that "intuitive" mostly means "what the writer or speaker of intuitive likes". - Bruce Ediger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], on X the intuitiveness of a Mac interface -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
> I've just asked on #debian-devel and here's what I got: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html > http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html > > Also if there were some contributions (and according to changelog there > were) you should ask contributors for the change of license. It would be pretty hard to hunt all contributors down. IANAL, but I don't think that legally I'm required to, since currently I'm the sole copyright holder for all files. I.e. I assume all contributions have been assigned to me. What does the law say on small contributions (or corrections) where the author doesn't say he wants to keep the copyright? Thanks, Miklos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
> > > - replace openssl with gcrypt or such > > > - add an exception to the GPL license of fuse (permission to link with > > >OpenSSL) > > > > Permission granted :) > > > > Do I need to put it in some magic licence file in future releases? > > That would be better. I am not the fuse maintainer (he is be'ing Cc'ed), > but normaly I would request at least a GPG signed mail for license > changes. I just realized that the problem doesn't exist, since the fuse _library_ is under LGPL (since version 1.1). The kernel module is obviously GPL, but nobody links against that except the kernel. Thanks, Miklos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 04:18:56PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > PS: I see trouble coming. The package uses openssl but also the fuse > > library which is licensed under the GPL (without the OpenSSL remark). So > > the only way around this is: > > > > - replace openssl with gcrypt or such > > - add an exception to the GPL license of fuse (permission to link with > >OpenSSL) > > Permission granted :) > > Do I need to put it in some magic licence file in future releases? I've just asked on #debian-devel and here's what I got: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html Also if there were some contributions (and according to changelog there were) you should ask contributors for the change of license. regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
#include * Miklos Szeredi [Sun, Mar 06 2005, 04:18:56PM]: > > - replace openssl with gcrypt or such > > - add an exception to the GPL license of fuse (permission to link with > >OpenSSL) > > Permission granted :) > > Do I need to put it in some magic licence file in future releases? That would be better. I am not the fuse maintainer (he is be'ing Cc'ed), but normaly I would request at least a GPG signed mail for license changes. Regards, Eduard. -- Wer wirklich noch einen 4.x-Browser benutzt, dem kann leider nicht mehr geholfen werden. Die haben soviele Sicherheitsloecher, da koennten wir per www.linuxtag.org, Exploit und etwas Scriptmagic einen neuen Browser von Remote installieren. // Michael Kleinhenz, lt2k-ml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
> > I (lufs-cryptofs maintainer) support it! lufs-cryptofs is nice but needs > > to be audited and I do not like the code, especially because LUFS is > > dead upstream. encfs seems to be much better, and I want to get rid of > > CFS (that I currently use) RSN. > > PS: I see trouble coming. The package uses openssl but also the fuse > library which is licensed under the GPL (without the OpenSSL remark). So > the only way around this is: > > - replace openssl with gcrypt or such > - add an exception to the GPL license of fuse (permission to link with >OpenSSL) Permission granted :) Do I need to put it in some magic licence file in future releases? Thanks, Miklos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 03:55:07PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > As a fuse maintainer all I can say that _right now_ encfs can't be > > packaged, cause it needs 2.2 version of fuse which is waiting for > > ftp-master approval for more than two months now. > > Do you have those packages somewhere to download? I had to made them publicly available, cause Sebastien Delafond (gmailfs maintainer) works on porting gmailfs to new fuse branch. He also waits for new fuse in the archive. You can download it from my webpage: http://skawina.eu.org/fuse/ regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
#include * Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [Sun, Mar 06 2005, 03:05:20PM]: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 02:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > I (lufs-cryptofs maintainer) support it! lufs-cryptofs is nice but needs > > to be audited and I do not like the code, especially because LUFS is > > dead upstream. encfs seems to be much better, and I want to get rid of > > CFS (that I currently use) RSN. > > > > So someone should step out and package encfs. I could do in some weeks > > (when I have more time) but if somebody else packages it before me, I > > would like to sponsor it (if needed). > > > > IMO fuse-encfs would be an appropriate package name. > > As a fuse maintainer all I can say that _right now_ encfs can't be > packaged, cause it needs 2.2 version of fuse which is waiting for > ftp-master approval for more than two months now. Do you have those packages somewhere to download? Regards, Eduard. -- The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in the terrible in-between.-- Centauri Emperor, "Babylon 5 - The Coming Of Shadows"
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 02:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > I (lufs-cryptofs maintainer) support it! lufs-cryptofs is nice but needs > to be audited and I do not like the code, especially because LUFS is > dead upstream. encfs seems to be much better, and I want to get rid of > CFS (that I currently use) RSN. > > So someone should step out and package encfs. I could do in some weeks > (when I have more time) but if somebody else packages it before me, I > would like to sponsor it (if needed). > > IMO fuse-encfs would be an appropriate package name. As a fuse maintainer all I can say that _right now_ encfs can't be packaged, cause it needs 2.2 version of fuse which is waiting for ftp-master approval for more than two months now. I tried to contact ftp-masters about that but without success. Otherwise I see no reason to not package it, since fuse is considered as a future user-space way to add new filesystems. regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
#include * Eduard Bloch [Sun, Mar 06 2005, 02:43:49PM]: > I (lufs-cryptofs maintainer) support it! lufs-cryptofs is nice but needs > to be audited and I do not like the code, especially because LUFS is > dead upstream. encfs seems to be much better, and I want to get rid of > CFS (that I currently use) RSN. PS: I see trouble coming. The package uses openssl but also the fuse library which is licensed under the GPL (without the OpenSSL remark). So the only way around this is: - replace openssl with gcrypt or such - add an exception to the GPL license of fuse (permission to link with OpenSSL) Regards, Eduard. -- Wer wirklich noch einen 4.x-Browser benutzt, dem kann leider nicht mehr geholfen werden. Die haben soviele Sicherheitsloecher, da koennten wir per www.linuxtag.org, Exploit und etwas Scriptmagic einen neuen Browser von Remote installieren. // Michael Kleinhenz, lt2k-ml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#288081: who wants to package it?!
Hello I (lufs-cryptofs maintainer) support it! lufs-cryptofs is nice but needs to be audited and I do not like the code, especially because LUFS is dead upstream. encfs seems to be much better, and I want to get rid of CFS (that I currently use) RSN. So someone should step out and package encfs. I could do in some weeks (when I have more time) but if somebody else packages it before me, I would like to sponsor it (if needed). IMO fuse-encfs would be an appropriate package name. Regards, Eduard. -- Hauptsache es geht vorwärts - die Richtung ist egal.
