On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:52:47PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > If we want to consider performance-related concerns, I think the easier
> > solution is using Nettle, which is LGPL 2.1. Considering that the
> > current opinions for a new hash function are moving in the direction of
>
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:51:52AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> They're changing their license[1] to Apache 2 which unlike the current
> fuzzy compatibility with the current license[2] is explicitly
> incompatible with GPLv2[3].
>
> We use OpenSSL for SHA1 by default unless NO_OPENSSL=Y
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:44 PM, brian m. carlson
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:51:52AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> They're changing their license[1] to Apache 2 which unlike the current
>> fuzzy compatibility with the current license[2] is explicitly
>> incompatible with GPLv2
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 06:51:21PM +0100, Ęvar Arnfjörš Bjarmason wrote:
>> In GPLv3 projects only, not GPLv2 projects. The paragraphs you're
>> quoting all explicitly mention v3 only, so statements like
>> "incompatible in one direction" on
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 06:51:21PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> In GPLv3 projects only, not GPLv2 projects. The paragraphs you're
> quoting all explicitly mention v3 only, so statements like
> "incompatible in one direction" only apply to Apache 2 && GPLv3, but
> don't at all apply to GP
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 5:57 PM, demerphq wrote:
> On 25 March 2017 at 17:35, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:43 AM, demerphq wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25 Mar 2017 10:18 a.m., "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:40 AM, demerphq wrote:
On 25 March 2017 at 17:35, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:43 AM, demerphq wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25 Mar 2017 10:18 a.m., "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason"
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:40 AM, demerphq wrote:
>>> On 25 March 2017 at 00:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>>
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:43 AM, demerphq wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Mar 2017 10:18 a.m., "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason"
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:40 AM, demerphq wrote:
>> On 25 March 2017 at 00:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>> wrote:
>>> They're changing their license[1] to Apache 2 which unli
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:40 AM, demerphq wrote:
> On 25 March 2017 at 00:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> They're changing their license[1] to Apache 2 which unlike the current
>> fuzzy compatibility with the current license[2] is explicitly
>> incompatible with GPLv2[3].
>
> Are you sure t
On 25 March 2017 at 00:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> They're changing their license[1] to Apache 2 which unlike the current
> fuzzy compatibility with the current license[2] is explicitly
> incompatible with GPLv2[3].
Are you sure there is an issue? From the Apache page on this:
Apache 2
They're changing their license[1] to Apache 2 which unlike the current
fuzzy compatibility with the current license[2] is explicitly
incompatible with GPLv2[3].
We use OpenSSL for SHA1 by default unless NO_OPENSSL=YesPlease.
This still hasn't happened, but given the lifetime of git versions
packa
11 matches
Mail list logo