Thread: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 454-5900

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

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:  nn...@um...
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-6679
UMR Information Technology             Fax: (573) 341-4216

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cra...@li...
> [mailto:cra...@li...] On Behalf Of
> Mike Frysinger
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:15 PM
> To: cra...@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

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

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:  nn...@um...
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-6679
UMR Information Technology             Fax: (573) 341-4216

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cra...@li...
> [mailto:cra...@li...] On Behalf Of
> Mike Frysinger
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:33 PM
> To: Neulinger, Nathan
> Cc: cra...@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

> 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

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.

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

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

>> 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

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

Thread: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license

cracklib-devel