333 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
333 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
-----------
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|