Better proxy support available via libcurl?
dshaw at jabberwocky.com
Thu Aug 3 16:17:15 CEST 2006
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 03:28:09PM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08, David Shaw said:
> > These are good objections, but I don't know how well they apply in the
> > GPG case. Judging by the ChangeLogs, GPG (at least 1.4.x) does not
> It is not actually a problem as the FSF holds copyright assignments.
> So they would need to decide unless I decide that for technical
> reasons we need to change the license.
> > gpgkeys_curl, and gpgkeys_hkp? They're separate programs that
> > communicate via pipes (the classic example of the barrier that the GPL
> > does not cross). Their licensing need not be the same as the gpg
> That is a common misunderstanding. The GPL does not specify the
> technical terms what makes up a derivative work. In many cases the
> process boundary is good guess but not always true. In our case the
> keyserver helpers have been written has part of gpg and are designed
> to work with them. They are not intended as a separate tool. Thus I
> won't see that as a mere aggregation.
That's not the case though - they were designed intentionally to be
able to run outside of GPG for general keyserver access. That's one
of the reasons the communications were versioned: if gpgkeys_* were
strictly part of GPG, then there would be no reason to version the
communications, as a GPG update would always give you the matching
helpers. One of the front-ends was using this ability (was it
WinPT?). Jason Harris also has a package that calls them directly.
gpgkeys_* is not a derivative work of GPG. We could easily make
gpgkeys_* a whole new package if necessary. Just like GnuPG 1.9 is
made up of a bunch of smaller packages, the keyserver helpers could be
a small package that works with (and is presumably included with)
> As we can't solve this problem right now and given that this is a
> general problem not related only to GnuPG, I suggest that we suspend
> this problem for now and wait for the GPLv3 which might help to fix
> the problem. I will open a bug so that we don't forget about it.
Valid questions have been raised about distributing binaries. I'm
certainly okay with doing nothing, so long as it isn't going to leave
us in a state where people can't or won't package and distribute
GnuPG for fear of violating the license.
More information about the Gnupg-devel