Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 10:06:24AM +0100, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > Donovan Baarda wrote: > >This patch keeps the current md5c.c, md5module.c files and adds the > >following; _hashopenssl.c, hashes.py, md5.py, sha.py. > [...] > >If all we wanted to do was fix the md5 module > > If we want to fix

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

From: "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Donovan Baarda wrote: > > This patch keeps the current md5c.c, md5module.c files and adds the > > following; _hashopenssl.c, hashes.py, md5.py, sha.py. > [...] > > If all we wanted to do was fix the md5 module > > If we want to fix the licensing issues

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

Donovan Baarda wrote: This patch keeps the current md5c.c, md5module.c files and adds the following; _hashopenssl.c, hashes.py, md5.py, sha.py. [...] If all we wanted to do was fix the md5 module If we want to fix the licensing issues with the md5 module, this patch does not help at all, as it keep

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 22:53 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > fyi - i've updated the python sha1/md5 openssl patch. it now replaces > the entire sha and md5 modules with a generic hashes module that gives > access to all of the hash algorithms supported by OpenSSL (including > appropriate legacy in

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

fyi - i've updated the python sha1/md5 openssl patch. it now replaces the entire sha and md5 modules with a generic hashes module that gives access to all of the hash algorithms supported by OpenSSL (including appropriate legacy interface wrappers and falling back to the old code when compiled wit

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

G'day, On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 13:04 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 08:37:21AM -0500, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:54:27PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > > Are there any potential problems with making the md5sum module > > > availability > > > "opt

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:52:29 -0500, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe some ambitious PSF activitst could contact Roskind and Steve > Kirsch and see if they know who at Disney to talk to... Or maybe the > Disney guys who were at PyCon last year could help. I contacted Jim. His respo

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 08:37:21AM -0500, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:54:27PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > Are there any potential problems with making the md5sum module availability > > "optional" in the same way as this? > > The md5 module has been a standard module for

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 08:37, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > The md5 module has been a standard module for a long time; making it > optional in the next version of Python isn't possible. We'd have to > require OpenSSL to compile Python. I totally agree. -Barry signature.asc Description: This is a dig

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:54:27PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote: > Are there any potential problems with making the md5sum module availability > "optional" in the same way as this? The md5 module has been a standard module for a long time; making it optional in the next version of Python isn't poss

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

At 03:46 PM 2/11/05 -0500, Tim Peters wrote: If Larry is correct, it isn't legally possible for an individual in the US to disclaim copyright, regardless what they may say or sign. The danger then is that accepting software that purports to be free of copyright can come back to bite you, if the aut

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

At 02:09 AM 2/12/05 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Phillip J. Eby wrote: Isn't the PSF somewhere in between? I mean, in theory we are supposed to be tracking stuff, but in practice there's no contributor agreement for CVS committers ala Zope Corp.'s approach. That is not true, see http://www.pyth

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

Phillip J. Eby wrote: I personally can't see how taking the reasonable interpretation of a public domain declaration can lead to any difficulties, but then, IANAL. The ultimate question is whether we could legally relicense such code under the Python license, ie. remove the PD declaration, and at

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

G'day again, From: "Gregory P. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing > > md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a > > search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem is > > deciding what/how/whether to inc

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Feb 11, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote: G'day again, From: "Gregory P. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem i

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

At 12:57 AM 2/12/05 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Phillip J. Eby wrote: I personally can't see how taking the reasonable interpretation of a public domain declaration can lead to any difficulties, but then, IANAL. The ultimate question is whether we could legally relicense such code under the Pyth

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

G'day, From: "Bob Ippolito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Feb 11, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote: [...] > > Given that Python is already dependant on openssl, it makes sense to > > change > > md5sum to use it. I have a feeling that openssl internally uses md5, > > so this > > way we wont link a

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

Phillip J. Eby wrote: Isn't the PSF somewhere in between? I mean, in theory we are supposed to be tracking stuff, but in practice there's no contributor agreement for CVS committers ala Zope Corp.'s approach. That is not true, see http://www.python.org/psf/contrib.html We certainly don't have

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

[Jeremy Hylton] >> Unfortunately a license that says it is in the public domain is >> unacceptable (and should be for Debian, too). That is to say, it's >> not possible for someone to claim that something they produce is in >> the public domain. See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 [Mich

RE: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

Jeremy writes: > Unfortunately a license that says it is in the public domain is > unacceptable (and should be for Debian, too). That is to say, it's > not possible for someone to claim that something they produce is in > the public domain. See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 Not quite

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

> I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing > md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a > search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem is > deciding what/how/whether to include the openssl md5 implementation > sources so that win32 can use

Re: Bug#293932: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

>> Maybe some ambitious PSF activitst could contact Roskind and Steve >> Kirsch and see if they know who at Disney to talk to... Or maybe the >> Disney guys who were at PyCon last year could help. Matthias> please could somebody give me a contact address? Steve's easy enough to

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:55:02 +0100, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Currently md5c.c is included in the python sources. The libmd > > implementation has a drop in replacement for md5c.c. The openssl > > implementation is a complicated tangle of Makefile expanded template > > code that

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

Donovan Baarda writes: > On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > > The md5.h/md5c.c files allow "copy and use", but no modification of > > > the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc, > > > openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other require

Re: Bug#293932: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

Jeremy Hylton writes: > Maybe some ambitious PSF activitst could contact Roskind and Steve > Kirsch and see if they know who at Disney to talk to... Or maybe the > Disney guys who were at PyCon last year could help. please could somebody give me a contact address? Matthias __

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 17:15 +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote: [...] > I think it would be cleaner and simpler to modify the existing > md5module.c to use the openssl md5 layer API (this is just a > search/replace to change the function names). The bigger problem is > deciding what/how/whether to include

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 23:13 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote: > On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > > On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 21:30 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote: [...] > > Only problem with this, is pyopenssl doesn't yet include any mdX or sha > > modules. > > My bad, how about M2Crypto

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote: On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 21:30 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote: On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: [...] One possible alternative would be to bring in something like PyOpenSSL

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 21:30 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote: > On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: [...] > One possible alternative would be to bring in something like PyOpenSSL > and jus

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Donovan Baarda wrote: On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: The md5.h/md5c.c files allow "copy and use", but no modification of the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc, openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > The md5.h/md5c.c files allow "copy and use", but no modification of > > the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc, > > openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other requirements when > > considering a re

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

Maybe some ambitious PSF activitst could contact Roskind and Steve Kirsch and see if they know who at Disney to talk to... Or maybe the Disney guys who were at PyCon last year could help. Jeremy On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:37:50 -0500, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Matthias Klose] > > A De

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

[Matthias Klose] > A Debian user pointed out (http://bugs.debian.org/293932), that the > current license for the Python profiler is not conforming to the DFSG > (Debian free software guidelines). > > http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/node829.html states > > "This permission is explicitly restr

Re: [Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

> The md5.h/md5c.c files allow "copy and use", but no modification of > the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc, > openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other requirements when > considering a replacement? > > Matthias I believe the "plan" for md5 and sh

[Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c

A Debian user pointed out (http://bugs.debian.org/293932), that the current license for the Python profiler is not conforming to the DFSG (Debian free software guidelines). http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/node829.html states "This permission is explicitly restricted to the copying and m