In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
The current generation of BSD system libraries are all licensed in a
GPL-compatible manner (BSD license w/o advertising clause). So this is
not a problem unless they try to link gcc against something that has not=20
had the licensing clause removed, such
Scripsit Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
your GPL binary is not shipped together
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as*
your GPL binary is
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
And those are really all the requirements that the LGPL imposes on
source code that is linked to the library to form an executable, but is
not part of the library itself -- i.e., not much. It certainly doesn't
require that they
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:43:17PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
And those are really all the requirements that the LGPL imposes on
source code that is linked to the library to form an executable, but is
not part of the library
Jeff Licquia wrote:
To clarify Steve's otherwise excellent reply: recent gnutls ships with
an OpenSSL compatibility library. The libraries are LGPL, so there
should be no problem with compatibility.
I haven't tried it yet, but I intend to with CUPS. I'd recommend you
give it a try.
It's
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries
against GPL-incompatible
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 12:38:10AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The specific wording of the GPL grants
Hello,
after I have received a Reject from FTP Masters on the cadaver package,
because it is GPL and linked against openssl, I opened up the Bug #163583 and
contacted upstream.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=nobug=163583
Here is the answer from Joe Orton, which basically
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:24:35AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
after I have received a Reject from FTP Masters on the cadaver package,
because it is GPL and linked against openssl, I opened up the Bug #163583 and
contacted upstream.
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 19:28, Steve Langasek wrote:
So the options are that you could secure a clarification of the GPL's OS
exemption from the FSF, in the form of a new revision of the GPL, that
permits what you're asking; or you can find a way to replace OpenSSL in
the build with a library
11 matches
Mail list logo
