❦ 29 mars 2017 18:11 -0700, Clint Byrum :
>> Right. That is how it also works in Spain, and I suspect that in many
>> other countries work the same way.
>>
>> I understand that Debian wants to take a position of zero (or minimal)
>> risk, and I also understand the desire to respect the interpre
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:10:01PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> Apache 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3 [1] (therefore also with GPLv2+).
It's more complicated than "therefore also".
Imagine a GPL2+ program library linked with a GPL2 library. Now also link
this program with an Apache 2.0
Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 05:08:24 +0200:
> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04
> > +0200:
> >> On 30/03/17 00:24, Philipp Kern wrote:
> >>> On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL
> program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program
> to be used along with OpenSSL, when they where the ones implementing
>
On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04
> +0200:
>> On 30/03/17 00:24, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
So, the best case situation (IMHO) would be that a lawyer tell us
Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04 +0200:
> On 30/03/17 00:24, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> >> So, the best case situation (IMHO) would be that a lawyer tell us that
> >> Apache 2.0 is also compatible with
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:49:04AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> However, I still don't understand why we don't just declare OpenSSL a
> system library; or at least define a clear policy for when a package is
> considered part of the base system (so the GPL system exception applies
> t
On 30/03/17 00:24, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> So, the best case situation (IMHO) would be that a lawyer tell us that
>> Apache 2.0 is also compatible with GPLv2-only, and that we stop playing
>> the game of being amateur lawyers instead of sof
On 30/03/17 00:26, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote:
>>> Florian Weimer wrote:
> #5 Declare GMP to be a system library.
>
(snip)
> #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian
> has a
Using:
http://mirrors.us.kernel.org/debian/dists/stretch/main/installer-i386/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
27-Jan-2017 22:23 35M
burned to CDRW.
/proc/cmdline:
BOOT_IMAGE=linux vga=788 initrd=initrd.gz --- ipv6.disable=1 net.ifnames=0
netcfg/disable_dhcp=true netcfg/get_hostname=myhost
base
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>> #5 Declare GMP to be a system library.
> >>>
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >>> #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian
> >>> has another viewpoint on OpenSSL I somehow doubt
On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> So, the best case situation (IMHO) would be that a lawyer tell us that
> Apache 2.0 is also compatible with GPLv2-only, and that we stop playing
> the game of being amateur lawyers instead of software developers.
But that's not how the la
On 29/03/17 22:25, Brian May wrote:
> Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes:
>
>> But in the worst case, it will be compatible with GPLv2+ and GPLv3.
>
> I am not sure I see this as the worst case situation. Or maybe you meant
> to write "incompatable"?
>
No.
Apache 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3 [
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana (phls)"
* Package name: flask-socketio
Version : 2.8.6
Upstream Author : Miguel Grinberg
* URL : https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/Flask-SocketIO
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Python
On 29/03/17 22:28, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:58:07PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> So... does this means that we are actually *now* shipping OpenSSL with
>> GPL software on the same DVD?
> This is permitted, or are you joking?
>
>
>
Yes
It was a sarca
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:58:07PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> So... does this means that we are actually *now* shipping OpenSSL with
> GPL software on the same DVD?
This is permitted, or are you joking?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:25:04AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > But in the worst case, it will be compatible with GPLv2+ and GPLv3.
> I am not sure I see this as the worst case situation.
It's worse that being compatible with GPL2 too.
> Or maybe you meant to write "incompatable"?
No.
--
WBR, wR
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes:
> But in the worst case, it will be compatible with GPLv2+ and GPLv3.
I am not sure I see this as the worst case situation. Or maybe you meant
to write "incompatable"?
--
Brian May
On 29/03/17 19:37, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:49:48 +0200 Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>
> [...]
>> I think that any package that is essential for the base OS
>> (aka Priority: required) should qualify for the system exception.
>
> Well, for the record, package libssl1.0.
On 29/03/17 15:58, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote:
>>> Florian Weimer wrote:
> #5 Declare GMP to be a system library.
>
(snip)
> #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian
> has another viewpoint on OpenSSL I so
On 03/26/2017 09:37 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Guillem Jover:
>
>>> dlopen()ing dependencies in the way that is most commonly implemented,
>>> with dlopen("libimobiledevice.so.6") and dlsym(handle, "idevice_new")
>>> or similar, has some practical problems for Debian:
>>>
>>> * The libraries us
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
* Package name: libpandoc-wrapper-perl
Version : 0.6.0
Upstream Author : Jakob Voß
* URL : https://github.com/nichtich/Pandoc-Wrapper
* License : GPL-2
P
> On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Florian Weimer wrote:
#5 Declare GMP to be a system library.
>>> (snip)
>>>
#5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian
has another viewpoint on OpenSSL I somehow doubt we would use it for
GMP.
>>>
>>> I
On 26/03/17 01:01, Walter Landry wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> #5 Declare GMP to be a system library.
>>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> #5 was how Fedora looked at the OpenSSL library issue. Since Debian
>>> has another viewpoint on OpenSSL I somehow doubt we would use it for
>>> GMP.
>>
>> I would like t
24 matches
Mail list logo
