[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANWtx01JbhzUSv432hh6Bw74Thfa4m7Fh5_=n9BvTUZbxj6Hdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:11:48 -0400
From: Rich Rumble <richrumble@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: unrar license is not compatible with gpl, it is not
free at all
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
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.
