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
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]
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 11:24:55PM +1000, Mark Purcell wrote:
>I doubt a new tarball would be required. In fact an email from you to either
>hpoj-devel and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] is probably sufficient as if you
>make your intent clear in public forum, then your intent is clear and Debian
>will a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:07, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
> Since for various reasons I'm trying hard to release hpoj-0.90 by the end
> of July, what are the long-term implications if for whatever reason this
> issue isn't resolved by then and
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 12:34:33PM -0400, Mark Horn wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the GPL says that no one can *release*
> a copy of hpoj linked to OpenSSL. They can certainly use hpoj linked
> to OpenSSL. Of course, that doesn't help you as the guy who is trying
> to package up hpoj for
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 09:00:29PM +1000, Mark Purcell wrote:
>However by the letter of the GPL no one is currently allowed to
>link OpenSSL with hpoj as OpenSSL is not GPL compatible, to allow such
>linking requires express excemption from yourself.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the GPL says th
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 Wed, 2002-05-22 at 06:00, Mark Purcell wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002 10:40, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
> > Hi, Mark. While I don't object to linking with OpenSSL in the manner it's
> > currently done with hpoj (to satistify a libsnmp dependency, where OpenSSL
> > doesn't actually ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 22 May 2002 10:40, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
> Mark Purcell wrote:
> > OpenSSL (libcrypto) which maybe precluded under the
> > GPL, unless the hpoj licensing terms include a disclamer:
> > http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#L
16 matches
Mail list logo
