[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e30076a31eeffc55b02da60e652186c@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 14:47:53 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: unrar license is not compatible with gpl, it is not free at all
On 29 Sep, 2012, at 14:11 , Rich Rumble <richrumble@...il.com> 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. The fact
> that the "non-free" unrar source code is freely available seems to
> keep it inline with the GPL.
> 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. If it's
> always going to be this "gray" area, might be a good idea to look at
> the unarchiver's library.
> -rich
Is there a difference between just "GPL" and explicitly "GPL v2"? This is a list of files containing any reference to GPL:
$ git grep -l GPL
BFEgg_fmt_plug.c
alghmac.h
gladman_fileenc.h
gladman_hmac.c
gladman_hmac.h
gladman_pwd2key.c
gladman_pwd2key.h
ike_fmt_plug.c
keepass2john.c
lowpbe.c
lowpbe.h
mozilla_des.c
mozilla_des.h
mozilla_fmt.c
npdf_fmt_plug.c
office2john.c
pfx2john.c
undrop.c
vnc_fmt_plug.c
vncpcap2john.cpp
Of those, only the last two (VNC) says "GPL v2". We could opt to drop/rewrite those instead of RAR (in case it's the "v2" that is a problem, but maybe that's not it).
After some thought I think it's very unlikely that just a source tree could possibly violate any license. So is the user violating a license when he/she builds JtR? Or is it only a violation when someone distributes a binary?
magnum
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.
