Re: New CUPS license violates DFSG 6?

Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The clause doesn't apply to us, since we're not developing an Apple > Operating System. So, we get the straight (L)GPL (plus other, less > controversial exceptions). Well when all the other BSD's runs as Debian systems Debian Darwin might not be impossi

beach towel

Dear Sirs: We know your esteemed company in beach towels from Internet, and pleased to introduce us as a leading producer of high quality 100% cotton velour printed towels in China, we sincerely hope to establish a long-term business relationship with your esteemed company in this field. Our

Redistribution of JSSE in a java package

Hi all, For a Java client that is to be uploaded soon (fireflier, announced in the last week on debian-devel), the Sun JSSE libraries are needed. According to the license that comes with JSSE (attached to this mail), redistribution seems to be allowed. I intend to distribute the JSSE jar libr

Re: New CUPS license violates DFSG 6?

Sam Hartman wrote: > It means that Apple does not need to include source for anything with > their primary OS CDs. Apple is trying to avoid anything GPLed or > LGPLed in the parts of the OS they pre-install. There of course GPL > and LGPL components in the developer tools. If I remember correctl

Re: New CUPS license violates DFSG 6?

On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 16:26, Santiago Vila wrote: > This means if we mix CUPS code under the new GPL+exception license and > ordinary GPL code, the result may only be distributed under the > unmodified GPL or not distributed at all, which means you can't send > CUPS maintainers a GPLed patch anymor

Re: New CUPS license violates DFSG 6?

Glenn Maynard wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:23:51PM -0400, Michael Sweet wrote: The license exception is there specifically so that MacOS and Darwin developers can link against libcupsimage or derive their own code from various parts of CUPS without worrying about the GPL or licensing CUPS t

OpenSSL exception for GPLed code?

Hi, I cannot[1] release new Nessus[2] packages because the upstream GPLed code has switched to using OpenSSL. Sadly, the parts of Nessus that are LGPL don't link to OpenSSL, yet those that are GPL do. :/ So I was wondering, where can I find a suitable license text that would have to be added to t

Re: New CUPS license violates DFSG 6?

Scripsit Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple > > Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not > > limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and > > backends for an Apple Op

Re: Redistribution of JSSE in a java package

Scripsit Rene Mayrhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 1. License to Distribute. Sun grants you a non-exclusive, > non-transferable, royalty-free, limited license to (a) use > the binary form of the Software for the sole purpose of > designing, developing and testing your JavaTM applets and > applicati

CUPS, the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:02:28AM -0400, Michael Sweet wrote: > >Could someone fork CUPS and remove that exception from the fork? I > >think that would be needed for GPL-compatibility > > I think any fork would need to preserve the original license > conditions under the GPL, but IANAL. Actuall

Re: OpenSSL exception for GPLed code?

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:43:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > I cannot[1] release new Nessus[2] packages because the upstream GPLed code has > switched to using OpenSSL. Sadly, the parts of Nessus that are LGPL don't > link to OpenSSL, yet those that are GPL do. :/ > > So I was wondering, where c

Re: Redistribution of JSSE in a java package

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:53:08PM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote: > > c. to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and > against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts > and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in > connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by

Re: Redistribution of JSSE in a java package

Stephen Stafford wrote: Henning Makholm has expressed some concerns in another mail which are valid. History shows that Sun might be willing to grant an exception to alleviate some of them though (see the exceptions given to blackdown.org for J2SE, which is pretty much the same license AFAICT).

Re: CUPS, the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing

Branden Robinson wrote: ... The bottom line is that a work is either licensed under the GNU GPL or it is not. By all accounts, CUPS is licensed under the GNU GPL. It just so happens that it is also licensed under other terms, presumably to parties to whom the GNU GPL is unpalatable. Custom-tai

Re: CUPS, the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing

On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 14:20, Michael Sweet wrote: > OK, for the purposes of clarification, how does the following > additional sentence sound: > > No developer is required to provide these exceptions in a > derived work. > > I've put the ammended license agreement up on the CUPS server

Re: OpenSSL exception for GPLed code?

> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:43:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin Branden> wrote: >> I cannot[1] release new Nessus[2] packages because the upstream >> GPLed code has switched to using OpenSSL. Sadly, the parts of >>

Re: Redistribution of JSSE in a java package

> "Rene" == Rene Mayrhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Rene> Hi all, For a Java client that is to be uploaded soon Rene> (fireflier, announced in the last week on debian-devel), the Rene> Sun JSSE libraries are needed. According to the license that Rene> comes with JSSE (attach

Re: CUPS, the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 03:20:37PM -0400, Michael Sweet wrote: > OK, for the purposes of clarification, how does the following > additional sentence sound: > > No developer is required to provide these exceptions in a > derived work. Sounds great. It sounds like we're utterly on the same

Re: OpenSSL exception for GPLed code?

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > Is a sunset clause DFSG free? It seems that it shouldn't be; implicit > in clause 1 at least to me is the continued right of free > distribution. From a practical matter it seems we need to allow > distribution at least through the gi

Re: CUPS, the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing

Branden Robinson wrote: ... My kudos to you for all of the above. It's refreshing to see a company that has a solid grasp of free licensing, applies it to their products, and puts things in plain language on their website instead of leaving things ambiguous and using weasel words per their lawye

sunset clauses

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > I reassert: a sunset clause is DFSG free if the software is still DFSG > free before and after the date on the clause. Agreed. However, the derivative work of X software linked to Y software may not be free even if X and Y are both free. This is tr

Re: sunset clauses

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:30:34PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > Agreed. > > However, the derivative work of X software linked to Y software may not be > free even if X and Y are both free. This is true regardless of the sunset > clause, and is the entire GPL/OpenSSL problem. It still exists unless

Re: sunset clauses

> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Imagine software that is GPL, and has a time-limited additional >> right to distribute when linked with OpenSSL. Branden> Yes, and in fact I would advocate just such an action. >> The software itself is free. No

seeking FDL 1.2 draft comment summary

Gentlemen, At , the following text can be found: "On 7 February 2002, the FSF released a draft of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 for comment. The comment period lasts for three weeks, until 1 March 2002. If you have comments on this draft, pl

Re: sunset clauses

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> The derivative work that is the software linked with OpenSSL is > >> not free IMO. It has a license that expires. It's free before > >> sunset, unlawful to distrubute after the exception expires. > > Branden> But t

Re: sunset clauses

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > I'm not sure I agree. I certainly think software legal to distribute > only because of a sunset clause cannot go in main. As I argued in my > previous message, I believe it violates the implicit assumption that > you will have the rig

Re: sunset clauses

> > I'm not sure I agree. I certainly think software legal to distribute > > only because of a sunset clause cannot go in main. As I argued in my > > previous message, I believe it violates the implicit assumption that > > you will have the right to continue distributing the software in DFSG > >

Linking Nessus with OpenSSL

Hi Renaund et al., First off, I want to thank everyone for a great job with Nessus 1.2.0. It's much better compared to Nessus 1.0.10, which I was running before. You guys are fantastic. As I was compiling Nessus 1.2.0, I noticed something of concern. It seems like Nessus, a piec

Re: sunset clauses

> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman Branden> wrote: >> I'm not sure I agree. I certainly think software legal to >> distribute only because of a sunset clause cannot go in main. >> As I

Implied exceptions to GPL?

I find this rather odd, see: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat>, part 2. Of course, you could argue that point 2 conflicts with point 3... Please CC replies to me. -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "uns

Re: sunset clauses

Please respect my mail headers: Mail-Copies-To: nobody X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies. On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 03:57:36PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > What? This seems an odd position - apt can go into main with a license > that would keep KDE out? As strange as it s

Re: sunset clauses

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:50:19PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > It sounded like you were saying that a sunset clause would be > appropriate to make Nessus which is currently not legal to distribute > at all appropriate for Debian. > > I don't think that is reasonable exactly because it might not be

Re: Linking Nessus with OpenSSL

[ nessus.org addresses not Cc'ed ] On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:13:15PM -0400, Simon Law wrote: > As well, to keep Nessus free, you should also put in a clause allowing > anyone else to remove this exemption in their derivative works. Just FYI... This isn't solely a matter of keeping Nessus free.

Re: Implied exceptions to GPL?

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:46:16PM +1000, Brian May wrote: > I find this rather odd, see: > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat>, part > 2. > > Of course, you could argue that point 2 conflicts with point 3... I disagree that they conflict, but I think point 2 is dange