[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 18:24:40 +0400
From: Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@...me.ru>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: unrar license is not compatible with gpl, it is not
free at all
On 2012-09-29 16:11, Rich Rumble wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@...me.ru> wrote:
>> I'm afraid you are. Although I'm not 100% sure -- I don't remember
>> exactly how GPL is applied to source-only distribution and I don't know
>> well enough which parts of john are under GPL, who their authors are and
>> how they interact. Maybe license exception from Solar is enough but
>> maybe not.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
> It's a very interesting topic, I hope I'm not confusing anyone
> further, I think because the source is available for unrar, and their
> license has an exception for using it, it would be allowed.
There is no problem with unrar license, the problem is with GPL.
> The fact
> that the "non-free" unrar source code is freely available seems to
> keep it inline with the GPL.
No way.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works
> I've read the whole thing, and I think it's OK, but IANAL.
Sorry, I don't get what you mean. Please be more specific.
> If it's
> always going to be this "gray" area, might be a good idea to look at
> the unarchiver's library.
Yeah, the unarchiver seems to be the only way forward.
--
Alexander Cherepanov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
