cracklib2/README-LICENSE

-----------
EFFECTIVE OCT 2008, LICENSE IS BEING CHANGED TO LGPL-2.1 (though not reflected
in released code until Nov 2009 - slow release cycle...)
-----------

Discussion thread from mailing list archive, with approval from everyone actively
involved or holding original licensing rights included.


[Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@ge...> - 2007-10-02 01:16

Attachments: Message as HTML     
looks like 2.8.11 is out and marked as "GPL-2" ... releasing libraries unde=
r=20
GPL-2 is not desirable at all ... this is why the LGPL-2.1 exists
=2Dmike


      	
      Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      From: Neulinger, Nathan <nneul@um...> - 2007-10-02 01:18
      I understand that, and you're welcome to bring it up with Alec directly
      and see if he wants to relicense his code as LGPL... but at this point,
      it was enough to just get it consistent and documented as to what it was
      released under. This wasn't actually a license change, just a
      clarification of the licensing that was already in place.=20

      -- Nathan
      =20
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      Nathan Neulinger EMail: nneul@um...
      University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-6679
      UMR Information Technology Fax: (573) 341-4216

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: cracklib-devel-bounces@li...
      > [mailto:cracklib-devel-bounces@li...] On Behalf Of
      > Mike Frysinger
      > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:15 PM
      > To: cracklib-devel@li...
      > Subject: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      >=20
      > looks like 2.8.11 is out and marked as "GPL-2" ... releasing
      > libraries under
      > GPL-2 is not desirable at all ... this is why the LGPL-2.1 exists
      > -mike

      	
      Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@ge...> - 2007-10-02 01:33

      Attachments: Message as HTML     
      On Monday 01 October 2007, Neulinger, Nathan wrote:
      > I understand that, and you're welcome to bring it up with Alec directly
      > and see if he wants to relicense his code as LGPL... but at this point,
      > it was enough to just get it consistent and documented as to what it was
      > released under. This wasn't actually a license change, just a
      > clarification of the licensing that was already in place.

      the original license (before moving to sourceforge -- aka, 2.7) was not=20
      GPL-2 ... it was a modified artistic license ... i didnt notice the license=
      =20
      change until it was mentioned in the latest notes.

      unlike the old license, GPL-2 prevents people from using cracklib unless th=
      eir=20
      applications are also GPL-2 which imo is just wrong. it isnt the place of =
      a=20
      library to dictact to application writes what license they should be using.=
      =20
      thus LGPL-2.1 enters to fill this void.
      =2Dmike

      	
      Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      From: Neulinger, Nathan <nneul@um...> - 2007-10-02 01:46
      Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
      maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
      decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
      much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small bit of
      additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine by me.

      -- Nathan
      =20
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      Nathan Neulinger EMail: nneul@um...
      University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-6679
      UMR Information Technology Fax: (573) 341-4216

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: cracklib-devel-bounces@li...
      > [mailto:cracklib-devel-bounces@li...] On Behalf Of
      > Mike Frysinger
      > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:33 PM
      > To: Neulinger, Nathan
      > Cc: cracklib-devel@li...; Alec Muffett
      > Subject: Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      >=20
      > On Monday 01 October 2007, Neulinger, Nathan wrote:
      > > I understand that, and you're welcome to bring it up with Alec
      > directly
      > > and see if he wants to relicense his code as LGPL... but at this
      > point,
      > > it was enough to just get it consistent and documented as to what
      > it was
      > > released under. This wasn't actually a license change, just a
      > > clarification of the licensing that was already in place.
      >=20
      > the original license (before moving to sourceforge -- aka, 2.7) was
      > not
      > GPL-2 ... it was a modified artistic license ... i didnt notice the
      > license
      > change until it was mentioned in the latest notes.
      >=20
      > unlike the old license, GPL-2 prevents people from using cracklib
      > unless their
      > applications are also GPL-2 which imo is just wrong. it isnt the
      > place of a
      > library to dictact to application writes what license they should
      > be using.
      > thus LGPL-2.1 enters to fill this void.
      > -mike

      	
      Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      From: Alec Muffett <alecm@cr...> - 2007-10-02 08:57
      > Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
      > maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
      > decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
      > much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small
      > bit of
      > additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine
      > by me.

      I am sympathetic. Guys, what do you reckon?

      What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
      linked with any code, not just GPL...

      -a

      	
      Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      From: Devin Reade <gdr@gn...> - 2007-10-02 15:04
      I would like to see it under LGPL as well. I think it is in everyone's
      best interests to have as secure systems as possible, and I think tainting
      it via GPL will just make it less likely that the library gets used, and
      will not usually cause companies/developers to GPL the dependent code
      (where it is not already GPL).

      I like GPL, I use it when I can, but I don't think that it's the correct
      license in this situation.

      Devin
      -- 
      If it's sinful, it's more fun.

      	
      Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      From: Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@re...> - 2008-01-28 16:32
      On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:57:31AM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote:
      > > Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
      > > maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
      > > decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
      > > much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small
      > > bit of
      > > additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine
      > > by me.
      >
      > I am sympathetic. Guys, what do you reckon?
      >
      > What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
      > linked with any code, not just GPL...

      My apologies for not chiming in in anything resembling a reasonable
      timeframe.

      I'd also suggest the LGPL, for the reason you noted above. Alternately,
      GPLv2 with the option of using the library under a later version of the
      GPL would permit applications which were released under version 3 of the
      GPL to use the library, too, which would be sufficient for the packages
      which are included in Fedora. FWIW, I'd personally lean toward LGPL.

      In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.

      Cheers,

      Nalin

      	
      Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@ge...> - 2008-10-05 21:27

      Attachments: Message as HTML     
      On Monday 28 January 2008, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote:
      > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:57:31AM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote:
      > > > Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
      > > > maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
      > > > decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
      > > > much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small
      > > > bit of
      > > > additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine
      > > > by me.
      > >
      > > I am sympathetic. Guys, what do you reckon?
      > >
      > > What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
      > > linked with any code, not just GPL...
      >
      > My apologies for not chiming in in anything resembling a reasonable
      > timeframe.
      >
      > I'd also suggest the LGPL, for the reason you noted above. Alternately,
      > GPLv2 with the option of using the library under a later version of the
      > GPL would permit applications which were released under version 3 of the
      > GPL to use the library, too, which would be sufficient for the packages
      > which are included in Fedora. FWIW, I'd personally lean toward LGPL.
      >
      > In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.

      looks like everyone is OK with LGPL-2.1 (GNU Lesser license), so can we make
      the change now ?
      -mike

      	
      Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      From: Alec Muffett <alecm@cr...> - 2008-10-05 23:18
      >> In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.
      >
      > looks like everyone is OK with LGPL-2.1 (GNU Lesser license), so can we make
      > the change now ?

      yes. go for it. thanks++

      -a

      	
      Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
      From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@ge...> - 2008-10-25 22:34

      Attachments: Message as HTML     
      On Sunday 05 October 2008, Alec Muffett wrote:
      > >> In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.
      > >
      > > looks like everyone is OK with LGPL-2.1 (GNU Lesser license), so can we
      > > make the change now ?
      >
      > yes. go for it. thanks++

      Nathan Neulinger is the only one who can actually make said change ...
      -mike



-----------
BELOW IS ORIGINAL LICENSING DISCUSSION RE CHANGING TO GPL from Artistic.
-----------

CrackLib was originally licensed with a variant of the Artistic license. In the 
interests of wider acceptance and more modern licensing, it was switched with
the original author's blessing to GPL v2. 

This approval was carried out in email discussions in 2005, and has been reconfirmed 
as of 2007-10-01 with the following email from Alec Muffett. 

The below email references nneul@umr.edu address, as that is the address
that was used at the time. For any future emails regarding this, please
use nneul@neulinger.org.


-------------------------------------


From alecm@crypticide.com Mon Oct  1 12:26:03 2007
Received: from umr-exproto2.cc.umr.edu ([131.151.0.192]) by UMR-CMAIL1.umr.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	 Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:26:03 -0500
Received: from scansrv2.srv.mst.edu ([131.151.1.114]) by umr-exproto2.cc.umr.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	 Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:26:02 -0500
Received: (qmail 8022 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2007 16:59:55 -0000
Received: from smtp1.srv.mst.edu (131.151.1.43)
  by scanin-ipvs.cc.umr.edu with SMTP; 1 Oct 2007 16:59:55 -0000
Received: from spunkymail-mx8.g.dreamhost.com (mx1.spunky.mail.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.47])
	by smtp1.srv.mst.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l91Gxtpr020623
	for <nneul@umr.edu>; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:59:55 -0500
Received: from rutherford.zen.co.uk (rutherford.zen.co.uk [212.23.3.142])
	by spunkymail-mx8.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7734D311
	for <nneul@neulinger.org>; Mon,  1 Oct 2007 09:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [82.68.43.14] (helo=[192.168.1.3])
	by rutherford.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1IcOcX-0004Qt-6L
	for nneul@neulinger.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:59:49 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <1b1b3fd80710010908k11dac0afp1f2dd471059ff9a4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1190922867.3457.147.camel@localhost.localdomain> <EC90713277D2BE41B7110CCD74E235CEF44F38@UMR-CMAIL1.umr.edu> <1b1b3fd80710010908k11dac0afp1f2dd471059ff9a4@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <117A1264-F6DC-4E25-B0DD-56FBFEBE6E9F@crypticide.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alec Muffett <alecm@crypticide.com>
Subject: Re: cracklib license
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:59:46 +0100
To: Nathan Neulinger <nneul@neulinger.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Originating-Rutherford-IP: [82.68.43.14]
Return-Path: alecm@crypticide.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2007 17:26:03.0008 (UTC) FILETIME=[2420C000:01C80450]
Status: RO
Content-Length: 585
Lines: 21

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Neulinger, Nathan <nneul@umr.edu>
> Date: Sep 27, 2007 2:58 PM
> Subject: RE: cracklib license
> To: alecm@crypto.dircon.co.uk
>
> Any chance you could write me a self-contained email stating clearly
> that the license is being changed to GPL, so I could include that  
> email
> in the repository and clean up the repository/tarballs? I have all the
> original discussion, but something succinct and self contained  
> would be
> ideal.

The license for my code in the Cracklib distribution is henceforth GPL.

Happy now? :-)

	-a