On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:28:46PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>
> > Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL
> > program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program
* Josh Triplett:
> The intention of the system library exception is to allow third
> parties to ship Free Software on proprietary platforms, while
> pointedly *disallowing* the vendor of the proprietary platform from
> doing so. As historical precedent, note that some vendors explicitly
> provide
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 08:14:25AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> As Carlos, it's hard for me to believe anyone will object to OpenSSL
> linking, all the more when they implemented the support for it.
A compication in this is that even though the developers of a program
would be happy with linking
* Adam Borowski:
> The approach of commercial companies to both code and law is "it compiles?
> Ship it!". They have sizeable legal departments, so the question they ask
> themselves is not "is this legal?" but "are costs of possible litigation
> smaller or greater than the cost of doing it corr
❦ 30 mars 2017 10:46 +0300, Lars Wirzenius :
>> As Carlos, it's hard for me to believe anyone will object to OpenSSL
>> linking, all the more when they implemented the support for it.
>
> A compication in this is that even though the developers of a program
> would be happy with linking to OpenS
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:09:20AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> Well, that's really new to me. Why would you object to link to OpenSSL?
I'm not sure how to respond to this.
I don't understand why it is new to you. The conflict between the
OpenSSL and GPL licences is well known, at least within
* Richard Fontana:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>
>> Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL
>> program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program
>> to be used along with OpenSSL, when they wher
* Lars Wirzenius:
> A compication in this is that even though the developers of a program
> would be happy with linking to OpenSSL, people who've written other
> libraries the program uses, or other code included in the program, may
> not be. I'm such a person. If some code I've released some code
Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24)
> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04
> > +0200:
> >> I understand that Debian wants to take a position of zero (or
> >> minimal) risk, and I also understand th
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes:
> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04
>> +0200:
>>> On 30/03/17 00:24, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 03/29/2017 11:10 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> So, the best case situ
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: ro...@debian.org
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-combine-source-map
Version : 0.8.0
Upstream Author : Thorsten Lorenz (http://thlorenz.com)
* URL : https://github.com/thlorenz/combine-source-map
*
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:30:44AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Lars Wirzenius:
>
> > A compication in this is that even though the developers of a program
> > would be happy with linking to OpenSSL, people who've written other
> > libraries the program uses, or other code included in the prog
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: ro...@debian.org
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-object-key
Version : 0.2.0
Upstream Author : Fabrício Tavares
* URL : https://github.com/fabriciotav/object-key
* License : Expat
Programm
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes ("Re: System libraries and the GPLv2"):
> However, I still don't understand why we don't just declare OpenSSL a
> system library; or at least define a clear policy for when a package is
> considered part of the base system (so the GPL system exception applies
> to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: ro...@debian.org
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-quote-stream
Version : 1.0.2
Upstream Author : James Halliday (http://substack.net)
* URL : https://github.com/substack/quote-stream
* License
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:27:46AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> What really annoys me about this whole situation is this: I think no
> one presently argues that the GPLv2 prevents people from distributing
> pre-built binaries for proprietary operating systems. I can take
> Hotspot (a component o
Hi There,
Hope you are doing well!
This is Kendall from pre-sales team.
I am writing this email to inform you that we have *NetApp customers **email
list* for your marketing battles. Please let me know if you are interested
in acquiring NetApp email list.
We also have other technology users
On 30/03/17 10:44, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24)
>> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04
>>> +0200:
I understand that Debian wants to take a position of zero (or
Package: wntpp
Severity: wishlist
Information:
Homepage: https://github.com/albertvanderhorst/ciforth
lina is a 32 bit classic Forth system, (mostly) compliant to the
ISO Forth94 standard, with a library in source form.
It is small, yet allows to generate elf-executables that can be
shipped to an
Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 19:12:53)
> On 30/03/17 10:44, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24)
> >> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
> >>> Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04
> >>> +0200:
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> Instead, I'll repeat that licenses shouldn't be violated. One way of
> achieving that is to ask copyright holders for additional permissions
> that are needed to avoid a violation.
The problem with this approach, though, is that many of us have tried this
with GPL softwa
On 30/03/17 14:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes ("Re: System libraries and the GPLv2"):
>> However, I still don't understand why we don't just declare OpenSSL a
>> system library; or at least define a clear policy for when a package is
>> considered part of the base system
On 30/03/17 21:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes:
>
>> Instead, I'll repeat that licenses shouldn't be violated. One way of
>> achieving that is to ask copyright holders for additional permissions
>> that are needed to avoid a violation.
>
> The problem with this approach, though,
On 30/03/17 21:29, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> * License Must Not Contaminate _Other_ Software
>
> A work which is a derivative work of another piece of software isn't
> merely distributed alongside.
>
>> Shipping a collection of software on a
On 30/03/17 08:05, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:10:01PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> Apache 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3 [1] (therefore also with GPLv2+).
> It's more complicated than "therefore also".
> Imagine a GPL2+ program library linked with a GPL2 lib
Hi,
A Quick Follow up to you that if you are interested in *Pivotal users list*
which can help you to grow up your business campaigns?
* Specialties*: big data, cloud computing, hadoop, analytics, software,
open source software, containerization, private cloud, data science, cloud
foundry, m
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:28:46 -0400 Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>
> > Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL
> > program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program
> > to
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1068 (new: 13)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 159 (new: 0)
Total number of packages reque
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes:
> On 30/03/17 21:29, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>>> * License Must Not Contaminate _Other_ Software
>>
>> A work which is a derivative work of another piece of software isn't
>> merely distributed alongside.
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
