On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> As we're coming up to a release and thus need to close this issue
> quickly, could -legal please comment on this issue for completeness? I
> would really like comments from the peanut gallery, the cheap seats, the
> people who aren't l
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> >> > "Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License"
> >> > http://li
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 03:15:26PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> The summary I linked to was about reworked X-Oz license, which is
> clearly GPL-incompatible and probably non-free. However, clause 4
> criticized in the summary is identical to a clause in the license that
> started this thread, and
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 09:46:22PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 08:53:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > >True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
> > >to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary
> here equates the source.
You really mean machine code here, right? Because I would
appreciate the .s source files if someone wrote it in assembler.
> On releases@openoffice.org recently was announced [1] that there is now
> the Sun logo embedded into the OOo splash screen and that vendors are
> encouraged to add their logos to the screen instead of the Sun
> things
>
> So, we want to add the Debian Logo there.
>
> http://people.debian.or
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 09:47:11PM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> I've been thinking about packaging netPantzer (strategy game) but
> it depends on PhysicsFS which is absent in Debian archive
> (http://www.icculus.org/physfs/).
>
> So I'd like to package it too but this software has got
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 02:46:09PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Could anyone tell me if the "BSD Protection License" can be used
> for main?
>
> It can be found at:
>
>http://people.debian.org/~adamm/LICENSE
3. Modification and redistribution under closed license.
You may modify your copy o
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 08:06:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >
> > >Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo
> > >through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:14:06PM +,
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> I'd like to hear what other people from -legal think. I'm certainly
> not going to appoint anyone without the consent of -legal since this
> is just not the way it can work. But perhaps we can find a solut
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
Proposed
The original license is available at http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html
and is reproduced below:
---
Copyright © 2003, 2004 X-Oz Technologies. All Rights Reserved.
Permis
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 12:46:24AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I am not so sure anymore, after Branden has testified [:-)] that the
> author has explicitly refused to change it to a more conventional and
> unambiguous. Given that it's certainly *possible* to interpret the
> clause as meaning so
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
The original license is available at http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html
and is reproduced below:
---
Copyright © 2003, 2004 X-Oz Technologies. All Rights Reserved.
Permission is h
Debian Legal summary of the Petris license
Proposed
The original license is available at
http://home1.stofanet.dk/peter-seidler/petris-0.7.tar.gz and is
reproduced below.
You can do whatever you want with the program, i
Debian Legal summary of the Petris license
The original license is available at
http://home1.stofanet.dk/peter-seidler/petris-0.7.tar.gz and is
reproduced below.
You can do whatever you want with the program, it's Publi
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 08:31:16AM +0100, Jens Peter Secher wrote:
> Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > You can do whatever you want with the program, it's Public Domain.
&g
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 01:15:32PM -0500, Elizabeth Lennon wrote:
> The latest version is FIPS 180-2, and is available for
> download free of charge at
> http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/index.html. All FIPS
> are free of charge. Liz
I suppose we don't have to summarize this, then
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more to
> say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a
little more formality in d-l summaries.
What would be nice i
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> --- Debian-legal summary ---
>
> The OPL (Open Publication License) is not DFSG free:
Oh yeah. We now have a small problem:
http://www.debian.org/license
Our webpages are have been judged as non-free by D
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 05:34:41AM -0700, Joe Moore wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > As I said in my mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz
> > >Technologies
> > > shall not be used in advertising or otherwise t
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>
> >> Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more
> >
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:59:52AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> > d) Make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright
> > Holder.
> Not useful for Debian unless we do so. ;-)
You and I both know that Debian cannot make local distribut
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:56:11PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > - The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
> > violates the dissident test.
>
> Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It states
> "You must cause the modified files to ca
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 02:50:46PM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> This is an evil move, but you must appreciate the ironic nature of the prank:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
>
> ps. Better hurry, I'm not sure how long the About Ean Schuessler section will
> last
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 12:15:32AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 05:03:02PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > I think you mix things here a lot.
> >
> > 1. We already discussed the fact that LaTeX does have a patch
> >mechanism. We demonstrated it here.
>
> The cruci
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 03:04:11PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:26:26 +0200
> > From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > I will try to describe some worst-case scenario, to describe, what
> > it is
>
>
> [the scenario is omitted].
>
> You would be su
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 03:40:19PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> However, there is a big difference between TeX programs and, say, C or
> Perl programs. The innards of the C compiler or Perl interpreters are
> hidden from the user program. You cannot patch your compiler or
> interpreter DURING the
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 06:36:56PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Let me ask you this question. Suppose the libfoo-dev.deb package has
> only include files (no compiled libs and objects). The author of the
> package requires that absolutely no changes are done to the
> includes. However, you have t
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 02:41:45PM +1200, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This licence has got me a bit confused. Can someone please help to see if I
> can add this to a GPL program (aspell) without affecting its DFSG status. I'm
> aware languages are distributed in seperate packages and I
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:53:06PM -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> Hello everyone. Please cc me on any replies as I am not subscribed.
Done. You should set your Mail-Followup-To: header to say that,
then any intelligent mail reader will CC you.
> Unfortunately, I only know of two ttf f
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:53:06PM -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> Hello everyone. Please cc me on any replies as I am not subscribed.
Done. You should set your Mail-Followup-To: header to say that,
then any intelligent mail reader will CC you.
> Unfortunately, I only know of two ttf f
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 01:53:20AM +0200, Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote:
> hi,
> i'm making the package of a library (libevent) which has this license
> this looks like a derived form of BSD license anyway i don't know
> if i can put it under bsd license or i have to cut'n paste the license
> insid
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 07:01:07PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 09:23, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > OT, but I'm sure most people first pick gnuplot because they think it is
> > the GNU tool for the job. It's too bad that it capitalizes on the name
> > with such a license.
>
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:55:05PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Hi. I'm the vice-president of the Open Source Initiative, and I'm
> writing to you today in that stead.
N.B. I am CCing you since you do not have a Mail-Followup-To:
that says otherwise. If you are reading this list, plea
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:57:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20030126T125505-0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Another problem is that the DFSG does not prohibit a license from
> > requiring a specific form of affirmative assent known as click-wrap.
>
> I have a vague memory of such
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 09:54:54PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Simon Law writes:
> >Public domain software that is unlicensed does not have the
> > protection of copyright law. Therefore, it is likely to meet all the
> > DFSG criteria.
>
> How can it? Ther
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 04:53:16PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20030126T194352-0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:57:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > Also, there is -- again in the U.S. -- such a thing as an
> > uncopyrightable work, and such thi
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> * Some countries, particularly some in Europe, have a concept of "moral
> rights" that attach to creative works. I admit I am not too familiar
> with these, but they are not the same thing as copyright and have
> little in c
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:13:02PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:06:22PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> >
> > Any hints
>
> are welcome :)
Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
highlighted.
Simon
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > highlighted.
>
> Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that
> w
Package: ttf-freefont
Version: 20021016-2
Severity: serious
The package ttf-freefont is licensed under the GNU General Public
License, as listed in the appended debian/copyright file. I can confirm
this from http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/freefont/COPYING .
Since ttf-freefont _does_
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:12:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright:
>
> Note from upstream author:
>
> ##
> #I M P O R T A N TN O T E
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:09:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:38:52PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug ("all
> > > pages rendered with Zope have to ha
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:19:34AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:44:56AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > Could the maintainer of PHP-Nuke please have a little chat with
> > the author?
>
> I think that the author is unlikely to relent
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:07:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I didn't try to reach a conclusion about DFSG-freeness with the above
> > statement for the precise reason that I couldn't find a consensus on the
> > issue with my
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:07:20PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:09:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:02:32PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > We do have some software t
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:51:18PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:18:12PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > What I really mean here is for the maintainer to ask the
> > PHP-Nuke author to actually relicense their software such that their
> > intentions
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:24:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Agreed. In particular, in such a hybrid licence, the word "this
> > License" in the GPL text would naturally be taken to refer to the
> > entire hybrid rather tha
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 04:46:50AM +, James Troup wrote:
> Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Do you mind, Brandon(sic), if we let Niels finish GNU lsh? I sort
> > of like having a complete SSH protocol implementation in main.
>
> Huh? The on
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 05:04:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I also don't see a problem with the About Box interpretation of
> > (2)(c), which avoids the 4-clause BSD problem.
>
> Maybe you don't, but I don't see it as being easily construed from the
> language of (2)(c); it looks to me l
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 08:47:29PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > What term of the DFSG *clearly* says that a license cannot require
> > > click-wrap?
> >
> > DFSG says that modifications must be permitted
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:10:45PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:24:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > Agreed. In
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:33:51AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:52:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by
> > > themselves, are already farfetched in this circumstance.
> >
> > Well, it certain
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:22:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I remind everyone that even if the GPL applies, the below notice is more
> restrictive as it prevents editing to reflect current status. Additionally,
> the required notice does not include the warranty information, which may be
> a G
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:21:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > > But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What
> > > advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our
> >
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:58:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I'm not sure where we could go from there; asking them to change it to only
> > the main page is pointless if that's 1: still ambiguous and/or 2: still of
> > questio
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:26:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Can you remind me of the advantages of NOT interpreting as "object form"
> > > as "any form o
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > About boxes are fine, but I am not sure it is wise to permit a Free
> > Software license to forbid people from removing them. It makes perfect
> > sense to remove a
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version
> > of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to
> > conclude
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > Here's an interesting GPL puzzle. Say you completely remove
> > the interactive functionality of a program that uses (2)(c). This means
>
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Hugo Espuny wrote:
> 1) People who can vote: anyone reading this message (so reading
> debian-legal)
> 2) What you can vote: just one of the next options, just once by person.
> a) "Move it to non-free"
> b) "Stay at main"
>
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed]
>
> I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
> the check, i've some doubts about the license:
>
> Quoting debian/copyright:
>
> IRC II is copyright (c) 1990 by
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Send Cc: to me, i'm not subscribed]
>
> I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
> the check, i've some doubts about the license:
>
> Quoting debian/copyright:
>
> IRC II is copyright (c) 1990 by
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:53:53PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 13:31, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:15:23AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > I was checking the epic package, because i've ITA on it now.After
> > > the check, i've some doubts about the
Package: whois
Version: 4.6.2
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
The copyright notices on the whois sources are not sufficient. Neither
is the debian/copyright file. Since the maintainer is also the upstream
author, I presume that he actually _does_ want to license whois under
the GNU GPL. I have pr
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:19:22PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The copyright notices on the whois sources are not sufficient.
>
> How not? There is a clear statement from the author that he considers
> his work to be
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Consider this a suggestion to maintainers of packages that contain
> documentation that are under the GFDL, especially if it contains
> invariant sections. Imagine if an Emacs user visited Info and saw this:
>
> * Menu:
>
> * D
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:47:20PM +0200, Joerg Wendland wrote:
> Hi fellows,
>
> is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
> modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
> nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something simi
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 10:53:30AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > > Maintainer's addresse
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:16:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:34:36PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > Debian can't legally distribute such an info document. Because the
> > GFDL is incompatible with the GPL, it is prohibited to even
> > create an info document from
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 08:27:19AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 05:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > In particular: for emacs21, ``with the Invariant Sections being "The
> > GNU Manifesto", "Distribution" and "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE"'', and
> > for gdb ``with the I
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:38:16AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> More importantly, for both the front cover texts and the history
> section, the GPL does not require its changelog be in the source file
> itself; it is enough to accompany the work with a separate changelog
> file. The GFDL's req
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:09:05PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sure, but for some of us, _software_ is a very broad category. For
> > me, it includes all works which can be encoded as a stream of bits.
>
> wow, what can i say?! everything is software!?
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
> first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
> definition of free software which is different from ours. We also
> disagree about Debi
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:38:39AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> This is a DSFG-free, GPL-compatible, vaguely BSD-like license. No
> problem there.
>
> ... until and unless we learn that the author applies the obnoxious UW
> interpretation of "alter it and redistribute it". Our default
> interpr
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation
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
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [ 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 d
On 22 May 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> If you are looking for a sample license statement that has been
> considered to be good, you might want to look at the license that the
> authors of CUPS are planning to use. A copy can currently be found at
> http://www.cups.org/new-license.html. It has addi
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 12:32:39PM +0200, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:10:45AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> > > 2002-05-22 Simon Law <[EMAIL PROT
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 09:03:50AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > if a company made extensions to Nessus
> > and bundled them into the OpenSSL library; then they wouldn't actually
> > be derivative works of OpenSSL, but rather
On 24 May 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Simon Law wrote:
> > If that doesn't work, could we say that the OpenSSL library can
> > only be used for SSL support only?
>
> For a given definition of "SSL support"? :-)
>
> It seems to me that the best way f
Hi guys,
My work with Renaud and the Nessus team has led me to be more sensitive
to the OpenSSL situation. (Unfortunately, we still don't have a
resolution yet.)
This is why my eyebrows raised when I looked at snort and found
that it had the same problem! We distributed snort-mysql link
On 29 May 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 08:11, Simon Law wrote:
> > I decided to take a look at what Reverse Depends on OpenSSL:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/snort-1.8.6$ apt-cache showpkg libssl0.9.6 | grep
> > '^ ' | wc -l
> &
On 29 May 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 13:01, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > In the legal world, wording makes all the difference. The GPL
> > > specifically talks about code that's distributed *with* the GPLed
> > > binary, not abou
On 29 May 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> In most cases, I think that rebuilding the package with "--no-ssl" or
> some such should do the trick. For others, simply removing the
> offending package may also suffice.
This would seriously cripple most security software. Which is
not something
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 01:19:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 04:47:08PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> > so the GPL text itself is not DFSG compliant?
> > Oops.
>
> Old news. Read the archives of debian-legal for the past 9 months.
>
> That's right, every word of
Hi Renaud,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:08:42AM +0200, Renaud Deraison wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 07:04:32PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > Just touching base with you regarding the license conflict with
> > OpenSSL. Have you had a chance to talk to your lawyer? I'm
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 02:24:16AM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 01:51:05PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Could I distribute a modified version of Linux without Torvald's
> > > permission? I hope not.
>
> > Absolutely. Debian distributes modified kernels, and I know
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:48:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:23:14PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > TeX people are from a different culture. TeX is not going to evolve.
> > It is frozen. As Knuth said, "These fonts are never going to change
> > again" (http://sun
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:51:35PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> I am afraid the ignorance is truly mutual.
>
> I was amused by the suggestion that a LaTeX macro might cause a
> security problem and thus need a fix by Debian team. This is about as
> possible as a security problem from the Bible
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 09:28:05AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Simon Law writes:
> >TeX is not being distributed by Debian. teTeX, a distribution
>
> please, who is throwing red herrings here?
Apologies all around. I obviously did a thinko, and forgot
that I s
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 01:34:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 08:04:03PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I'm asking what A and B should do to bring themselves into
> > compliance. I don't want to sue or attack entities. I would like to
> > document the required behavi
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:40PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
> In fact, serious thought ought to be given to using HP's solution as an
> example to others that have to deal with a similar problem. It sounds
> like almost the perfect OpenSSL->GPL linking exception.
Indeed, I have mentio
e you
currently provide? I can see how this exception may be applicable and
useful for linking with non-OpenSSL works (that is Free Software that is
sadly GPL-incompatible.)
Thank you for your input in this complicated manner. I hope I
have not wasted any of your time.
Yours sincerel
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 03:06:47AM -0700, David Paschal wrote:
> Let me know ASAP if there are any problems I need to fix before
> releasing hpoj-0.90. If nothing comes up then I plan to start the
> release process approximately 12-24 hours from now.
>
> Thanks for everybody's patience and cooper
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 09:12:03PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> My question is: do you think this license exception is
> acceptable for use? That is, does it prevent the proprietary hijacking
> of the linked GPL-incompatible library? Can you see any flaws in this?
>
> I see
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 01:14:12AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Could we also pseudo-uniquely identify COPYING.OpenSSL with an
> > MD5 checksum? That is:
>
> I think in the upstream sources, the file is called &quo
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 09:46:14PM +0200, Thomas Seyrat wrote:
> On July 26, 15:02 (-0400), Simon Law wrote:
> > Yes. I have noticed that just now. It appears that Whisker and
> > its libraries are free, but its tests are non-free.
>
> Mmh, yes, this is weird. Maybe
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 02:53:19PM +0200, Bodo Moeller wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00454.html:
>
> > I would then include the entire OpenSSL license in the file
> > "COPYING.OpenSSL" in the hpoj package. Mark, please forward the LICENSE
> > file distr
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
