[Info-vax] Python and various libraries updated

[Jean-François Piéronne]

Le 06/08/2020 à 15:04, Arne Vajhøj a écrit :
> On 8/6/2020 1:42 AM, Jean-François Piéronne wrote:
>> Le 06/08/2020 à 01:08, Arne Vajhøj a écrit :
>>> On 8/5/2020 1:40 AM, Jean-François Piéronne wrote:
>>>> Do you see VSI involve in any open-source project ?
>>>> Have you ever seen any VSI contribution to an open-source project ?
>>>>
>>>> And not, a port without release sources updates is not a contribution,
>>>> it is a license violation...
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. It depends on what open source license it is.
>>>
>>> Whether it is a copyleft or a permissive license.
>>>
>>> As I read the Python license then one can create a
>>> version with closed source parts as long as one
>>> "include in any such work a brief summary of the changes
>>> made to Python".
>>>
>>> Smart? No.
>>> Ethical? Questionable.
>>> Legal? Yes.
>>
>> I don't speak especially for Python, it's a general remark.
> 
> Fair enough. But I thougth Python would be a relevant example.
> I could have picked Apache httpd instead.
> 
>>                                                             There are
>> many libraries/tools with a license which required you to publish the
>> sources like GPL for examples, SAMBA is one of them as mentioned by
>> Craig.
> 
> Strictly speaking it only requires you to provide the source to those
> that got the binary and allows those getting the source to redistribute
> it to everybody. But that is practically the same as publish public.
> 
> My complaint was about your statement "a port without release sources
> updates is not a contribution, it is a license violation" without any
> note about that it only applies for some licenses. That was misleading.
> 

You're right, they don't violate license of all products, just for some.

If this makes you happy and you think that's VSI has a great
contribution to the open source world that's your choice.

But for me a port without release any sources is not contributing to the
open-source world, it is just a contribution to the VSI business.


>> I suggest you list all the VSI ports and give us how many doesn't
>> violate the associated license, and how many violate their license...
> 
> I am not the one that claims that they are violating any license.
> 
> I am assuming VSI is complying with all licenses.
>
> Those that think otherwise should raise the issue.
> 
And what am I doing ?

Each time we have asked for VSI to publish updates the reply has been:
no, sorry no time.

But, again, if you're happy with this, no problem, and in fact, I know
many customers who have no problems with this.

If you want other examples: stunnel ,openjdk
"""
 Stunnel uses the OpenSSL library for encryption and is distributed
under the GNU GPL version 2 license or later with an OpenSSL exception.
"""

"""
 OpenJDK is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL)
Version 2 with a linking exception such that components linked to the
Java Class library are not subject to the terms of the GPL license.
"""

Just found this in a few minutes.

But, I agree for those under, for example, the Apache 2.0 license, you
are allowed to distribute binaries without providing the source code
with it.

Give me one example of a port done by VSI with sources available. Maybe
it's just so hidden that if haven't found.

Maybe I should have said that the contribution of VSI to the open-source
world is so light that it is near null, I don't think that's change the
facts.

JF






-- 
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus