Subject: LimaMeetingLog-2018-09-06.txt Date: September 6, 2018 at 3:46:32 PM PDT [15:00:39] Good afternoon / morning! [15:00:59] hi harald [15:01:22] hideyo-san is not joining today [15:01:39] what's new? [15:02:11] I'm going to Greece for vacation on Saturday [15:02:35] A lot of repairs in our house have just been finished in time [15:02:52] nice! [15:03:15] have fun in greece, looks like well deserved after construction at home [15:03:26] I hope so :) [15:03:53] Unfortunately, that left little time for software, and results were not so good [15:04:28] hideyo-san sent me a sms that the thursday time is no longer convenient for him [15:04:40] let me send an e-mail suggesting other times [15:04:51] what would work for you? [15:05:15] I don't care about the weekday, every day is fine. Midnight is an equalizer [15:05:44] he mentioned" "Sat between 12 midnight and 1am, between 12 noon and 9pm, Sun between 8am and 9pm. All in Tokyo time (GMT+9)" [15:06:08] let's follow up by email to find a time that works better for all of us [15:06:33] i have not much news on my side [15:06:51] except that looking forward to go to the desert on sep 20 to launch rockets :-) [15:07:04] Nice [15:07:34] on twiki no news after release [15:07:41] release went all well [15:07:48] announce done as well [15:08:08] so i do not have anything special today [15:08:18] we could have a short meeting [15:08:18] Checking out the new branch worked smoothly for me, too [15:08:28] good [15:08:40] Otherwise I have only the bad news that the Windows Personal TWiki can't be distributed [15:08:44] in recent days i am fighting spam on twiki.org [15:08:51] was quite for a long time now [15:09:09] why not distribute? [15:09:19] Incompatible licenses [15:09:29] oh [15:09:37] Technically, all went fine, but then I examined the package in detail... [15:09:41] which license? [15:10:02] Actually, the GPL is causing the problems due to its Copyleft [15:11:03] Or, you could also view it from the other side, the other licenses are causing the problems because they don't enable me to fulfill the obligations of GPL [15:11:36] what is the other license? [15:12:17] There are a few which are somewhat dubious, but in particular the SSLeay license states explicitly that the library can not be distributed under GPL [15:13:07] I made the mistake to believe that if Strawberry Perl can distribute it, then I can, too... But their distribution is just a collection, they don't actually link into it [15:14:13] depends on how closely the software of different licenses are connected [15:14:22] it's a bit of a gray zone [15:14:38] Yes, exactly. But in the case of twiki.exe, it is all in one executable file [15:15:00] static linking with compiled code is usually considered closely linked, e.g. incompatible [15:15:34] dynamic linking is loose, e.g. compatible [15:15:45] api calls are loose, e.g. compatible [15:15:54] Technically, it is somewhat similar to a JAR file - and I interpret it the licenses that you can have only one license for a JAR file [15:16:41] i am not sure [15:17:05] a jar file is a zip file, it could contain files of different licenses i presume [15:17:08] I can't say "the SSL stuff is under SSL license" because there is no separate SSL stuff - it's all in one file [15:17:34] i think it is up to debate [15:17:54] a lawyer familiar with gpl can answer that question [15:18:02] i think it is worth while asking [15:18:45] In my last months at Fujitsu I was also working for license considerations of bundled software... I have got some background in that area since I built the Windows distribution for the first time [15:19:13] maybe we can ask s=fsf or gnu org [15:19:47] i meant fsf or gnu org [15:20:53] I don't expect a positive response... since I am not able to assign any license to the executable [15:21:29] From the outside, it looks like "statically linked" because there are no .dll files [15:23:53] you could ask the author of the ssleay license directly for advise: eric young [15:24:08] i just read the license [15:24:26] it does not specify other licenses [15:24:52] so at first glance it looks ok if you specify both licenses [15:24:57] for the package [15:26:02] The openssl license that comes with Strawberry Perl says: [15:26:03] * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or [15:26:03] * derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be [15:26:03] * copied and put under another distribution licence [15:26:03] * [including the GNU Public Licence.] [15:27:58] hold on a bit [15:29:22] ...back [15:30:56] openssl announced last year that they will change from openssl license & ssleay license to apache 2.0 license [15:31:07] if that is the case we are ok [15:32:42] Doesn't help until there's a Strawberry distribution which contains that license [15:34:39] i would ask eric for advise [15:34:49] Plus, there are quite a few other binary libraries in the executable which I haven't checked in detail. [15:36:27] And finally, when the binary is distributed, I need to make available all source code of the stuff within it, including Perl itself [15:36:58] I've tried to automate the collection of sources, but it isn't that trivial [15:38:56] but isn't the point of straberry perl to distribute readymade exe? e.g. we are not the first one with the licensing question [15:39:18] i am just saying that it is too early to throw in the towel [15:40:15] shall we close the meeting? [15:40:55] Strawberry Perl is just a _collection_ of libraries, that's quite harmless. They can easily (and did) provide separate licenses for its 31 components [15:42:25] But we can, of course, close the meeting [15:42:45] ok [15:42:58] i recommend asking around on licenses issue [15:43:15] let's close the meeting, i'll post the logs and minutes [15:43:29] good night harald, and have fun in greece! [15:44:05] Good afternoon Peter! I've yet to calculate the daytime of Hideyo-san's proposals :) [15:44:51] me too :-) [15:45:01] ttyl