Mailing List Archive

On Thursday 15 March 2007 10:58, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am starting to advertise more widely RaSPF, my SPF library.
>
> It's sort of a C version of PySPF.
>
> You can find more info about it at http://raspf.blogsite.org.
>
> While it's not strictly compliant, it's pretty close (It fails only the
> exp-syntax-error and require-valid-helo tests.)
>
> Also, if the webmasters of www.openspf.org can add it to the
> implementations page, that'd be nice!
>
> Best regards,
>  
I will add it when I get a few minutes if no one else does first.

I took a quick look at your SVN with an eye to licensing/distributing
questions. I think you should spend a few minutes thinking about the
licensing for your project.

First, IANAL, so this is probably all wrong, but here I go....

pyspf is licensed under the Python software foundation license and you have
carried that forward. excc is GPL v2. hash is under the BSD license. udns
is LGPL. bstrlib is also BSD.

From what I know about it, PSL, BSD, and LGPL code can be linked against each
other with no problems. I am uncertain (and don't know enough about C to
have an opinion either way) if your use of excc intermingles GPL and non-GPL
code in an unacceptable way.

I would suggest you look into this and make sure you have things the way you
want. If I were to hazard a non-lawyer guess, if you use excc you will have
to license the package as a whole under GPL (which I think you can do).

Scott K

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

On Thu 15 Mar 2007 12:23:45 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday 15 March 2007 10:58, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am starting to advertise more widely RaSPF, my SPF library.
> >
> > It's sort of a C version of PySPF.
> >
> > You can find more info about it at http://raspf.blogsite.org.
> >
> > While it's not strictly compliant, it's pretty close (It fails only the
> > exp-syntax-error and require-valid-helo tests.)
> >
> > Also, if the webmasters of www.openspf.org can add it to the
> > implementations page, that'd be nice!
> >
> > Best regards,
> >  
>
> I will add it when I get a few minutes if no one else does first.
>
> I took a quick look at your SVN with an eye to licensing/distributing
> questions. I think you should spend a few minutes thinking about the
> licensing for your project.
>
> First, IANAL, so this is probably all wrong, but here I go....
>
> pyspf is licensed under the Python software foundation license and you have
> carried that forward. excc is GPL v2. hash is under the BSD license.
> udns is LGPL. bstrlib is also BSD.
>
> From what I know about it, PSL, BSD, and LGPL code can be linked against
> each other with no problems. I am uncertain (and don't know enough about C
> to have an opinion either way) if your use of excc intermingles GPL and
> non-GPL code in an unacceptable way.

Grmbl... yes, that is right. The use of excc is making everything GPL right
now.

> I would suggest you look into this and make sure you have things the way
> you want. If I were to hazard a non-lawyer guess, if you use excc you will
> have to license the package as a whole under GPL (which I think you can
> do).

AFAIK, right now this is not really a problem. My own RaSPF code is under
Python license, and the whole is GPL. I will se what I can do to make it stay
under a more liberal license (even if it means replacing excc).

--
 ("\''/").__..-''"`-. .         Roberto Alsina
 `9_ 9  )   `-. (    ).`-._.`)  ralsina@kde.org
 (_Y_.)' ._   ) `._`.  " -.-'   KDE Developer (MFCH)
  _..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.'
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.'   Buenos Aires - Argentina

Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it. --Brian W. Kernighan

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > I would suggest you look into this and make sure you have things the
> > way you want. If I were to hazard a non-lawyer guess, if you use excc
> > you will have to license the package as a whole under GPL (which I
> > think you can do).
>
> AFAIK, right now this is not really a problem. My own RaSPF code is
> under Python license, and the whole is GPL. I will se what I can do to
> make it stay under a more liberal license (even if it means replacing
> excc).

I don't see a real problem with GPL, but for the sake of SPF proliferation,
BSD would probably be best.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF+W6OwL7PKlBZWjsRAtYhAKDfQbm2AcS/jkb/FUOJwB/EAhNVqACg8qjR
wiAaE/59Syharti1t5K/ZQg=
=Vi/V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Roberto Alsina wrote:

> While it's not strictly compliant, it's pretty close (It fails only the
> exp-syntax-error and require-valid-helo tests.)

The require-valid-helo test is actually rather important. It is a complex
policy using 'include:' to simulate logical negation. If you got that
wrong, you are likely to get other complex policies wrong. The
exp-syntax-error is not as critical.

--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart@bmsi.com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

On Thu 15 Mar 2007 13:58:27 Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > While it's not strictly compliant, it's pretty close (It fails only the
> > exp-syntax-error and require-valid-helo tests.)
>
> The require-valid-helo test is actually rather important. It is a complex
> policy using 'include:' to simulate logical negation. If you got that
> wrong, you are likely to get other complex policies wrong.

The main problem is that I don't quite understand what the test's supposed to
do, so I asked in spf-devel about it.

> The exp-syntax-error is not as critical.

The whole exp support is untested/half-done anyway.
 
--
 ("\''/").__..-''"`-. .         Roberto Alsina
 `9_ 9  )   `-. (    ).`-._.`)  ralsina@kde.org
 (_Y_.)' ._   ) `._`.  " -.-'   KDE Developer (MFCH)
  _..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.'
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.'   Buenos Aires - Argentina

Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it. --Brian W. Kernighan

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

On Thu 15 Mar 2007 13:04:30 Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > I would suggest you look into this and make sure you have things the
> > > way you want. If I were to hazard a non-lawyer guess, if you use excc
> > > you will have to license the package as a whole under GPL (which I
> > > think you can do).
> >
> > AFAIK, right now this is not really a problem. My own RaSPF code is
> > under Python license, and the whole is GPL. I will se what I can do to
> > make it stay under a more liberal license (even if it means replacing
> > excc).
>
> I don't see a real problem with GPL, but for the sake of SPF proliferation,
> BSD would probably be best.

The EXCC author will probably relicense it as LGPL on monday (needs to check
for contributions) so this should go away soon.
 
--
 ("\''/").__..-''"`-. .         Roberto Alsina
 `9_ 9  )   `-. (    ).`-._.`)  ralsina@kde.org
 (_Y_.)' ._   ) `._`.  " -.-'   KDE Developer (MFCH)
  _..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.'
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.'   Buenos Aires - Argentina

Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it. --Brian W. Kernighan

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735