Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to the FSF, linking a GPL library is the equivalent of
preparing a derived work.
According to not just the FSF, linking a GPL library to something else
*IS* the preparation of a derived work.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 03:05:04PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Sure, code can be rewritten to use gnutls natively. But I don't
understand why anyone would consider this a useful expenditure of
developer resources when the necessary OpenSSL compat glue could simply
be made available under
On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 11:52, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 03:05:04PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I suppose it depends on whose resources are being wasted. Certainly the
GNU project's resources aren't.
Perhaps not directly. Who knows how many people who would otherwise
On Saturday 18 January 2003 10:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 12:32:34PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Perhaps not directly. Who knows how many people who would otherwise be
spending time on GPL software will instead be stuck porting
free-but-GPL-incompatible software to
On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 13:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 12:32:34PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Well, this is the GNU project we're talking about. How much
GPL-incompatible software do they distribute?
None that I know of. Are you ascribing to the GNU project the
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 11:56, Steve Langasek wrote:
While true, this doesn't address the fundamental complaint that the
licensing of the OpenSSL compatibility layer renders it worthless for
most applications. The ironic result is that those who write
GPL-compatible software are free to use the
Can someone explain what is the problem with the following situation?
In particular, why it is important here to have the OpenSSL layer
relicense under the LGPL?
GNU TLS OpenSSL compatibility layer under GPL, not LGPL
On Thursday 16 January 2003 02:50, Shaul Karl wrote:
Can someone explain what is the problem with the following situation?
In particular, why it is important here to have the OpenSSL layer
relicense under the LGPL?
According to the FSF, linking a GPL library is the equivalent of preparing
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Shaul,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote:
Can someone explain what is the problem with the following situation?
In particular, why it is important here to have the OpenSSL layer
relicense under the LGPL?
Think of the
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 05:40:47PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Think of the case of an LGPL library that wants to include SSL
functionality. If it links against the GPLed GNU TLS layer, it cannot be
used by GPL-incompatible apps, because the GPL
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 05:40:47PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
There is a third option: Make the library use GNU TLS natively,
without the OpenSSL compatibility layer. GNU TLS core is LGPL.
This is just an argument that the compat layer doesn't need to exist at
all, which is basically true;
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 11:15:02PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I have written a patch for CUPS to use the OpenSSL compatibility code in
GNU TLS, but upstream noticed something I didn't: the compatibility
library is in libgnutls-extra, which is still under the GPL. This
seemed odd to me; all
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 02:43, Nikos Mavroyanopoulos wrote:
Yes, the OpenSSL compatibility layer was written by Andrew McDonald
to allow GPL programs, that depended on openssl, to compile out of the box
with gnutls. This was the major problem back then.
I see.
CUPS is admittedly unique in this
13 matches
Mail list logo
