Hi, Andreas. Thanks for your quick response, and I apologize again for
phoning you at work. :-) Thanks for your comments about the progress
of the project, and I'm sure you'll find the next version (0.90) to be
even better, especially in the area of scanning support. Thanks also
to Roger, Gerha
I have checked into CVS the license changes which explicitly allow
linking with OpenSSL. If anybody would like to inspect these changes,
here are some sample files:
http://hpoj.sourceforge.net/hpoj-cvs/LICENSE
http://hpoj.sourceforge.net/hpoj-cvs/LICENSE.OpenSSL
http://hpoj.sourceforge.net/hpoj-c
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
Richard Stallman wrote:
> I see one possible flaw: if someone includes a different COPYING.OpenSSL
> file, this notice would give permission for linking with something
> under that replaced file. I think that's a bug. It needs to state
> the OpenSSL license in some more reliable way.
Hi, Richard
I wrote:
> 1. Add a statement to the top of the file LICENSE.OpenSSL saying that
> since it was effectively an extension to the license statements in the
> individual source files in the hpoj package, only the copyright holder(s)
> of those source files (namely HP) may update the LICENSE.OpenSSL fi
1. Add a statement to the top of the file LICENSE.OpenSSL saying that
since it was effectively an extension to the license statements in the
individual source files in the hpoj package, only the copyright holder(s)
of those source files (namely HP) may update the LICENSE.OpenSSL fi
> Certain source files in this program permit linking with the OpenSSL
> library (http://www.openssl.org), which otherwise wouldn't be allowed
> under the GPL. For purposes of identifying OpenSSL, most source files
> giving this permission limit it to versions of OpenSSL having a l
Remember that hoopla a while ago about license texts themselves not
being DFSG-free? Well, isn't it the case with this program?
Did someone give
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Uh, I just posted an incomplete version of this mail to
debian-legal. Sorry. I hit C-c by mistake.
I tried to say "huh, did someone give express permission to distribute
modified versions of LICENSE.OpenSSL, because that's what's needed if
anyone was going to change it." but then I realized that c
9 matches
Mail list logo
