search

purplesyringa / sslcrypto

Simple ECIES, ECDSA and AES library for Python, supporting OpenSSL and pure-Python environments
Other
27 stars 6 forks source link

Licensing issue. Removal from Python Package Index #4

Closed ghost closed 5 years ago

ghost commented 5 years ago

Hello,

This is a legal warning to stop this repository immediately because you copied from other peoples work and claiming it as yours under a different license. I request you to remove your package voluntary from the Python Package Index before I report this package for removal from https://pypi.org/.

If you interested I can present the original works you copied from most of your code.

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

If you interested I can present the original works you copied from most of your code.

Yes, I am. I am sure that the only part you can find is related to _ripemd.py (almost everything) and _jacobian.py (about a half, I could implement it all myself but I'd write almost the same code). Both of these files contain license notices.

Is there anything else I missed?

ghost commented 5 years ago

Not only! You know it well.

Let me quote for you a license: 

This software is made available under the terms of *either* of the licenses
found in LICENSE.APACHE or LICENSE.BSD. Contributions to cryptography are made
under the terms of *both* these licenses.

The code used in the OpenSSL locking callback and OS random engine is derived
from CPython, and is licensed under the terms of the PSF License Agreement.
purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

Ok... now what code did I copy from cryptography?

ghost commented 5 years ago

Do I really need to include here all the code? You know it well. You made this compilation. You are not allowed to relicense it as MIT in any way!

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

Do I really need to include here all the code?

Yeah, you do. You can't just say I compiled stuff from other projects without any proofs.

ghost commented 5 years ago

Yes, you did! _ripemd.py alone preventing you to put an MIT license on this compilation! That is a proprietary code! It doesn't grant you any right for relicensing!

filips123 commented 5 years ago

That is a proprietary code!

No it is not! It is BSD 2-clause.

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

This is a BSD 2-clause license. Let me quote the only related condition:

  1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Did I retain the copyright notice? Yes, I did -- the comment. Did I retain the list of conditions? Yes, I did. Did I retain the disclaimer? Yes, I did -- go read the comment.

Relicensing is allowed by default. It doesn't have to be granted anyhow.

ghost commented 5 years ago

All rights reserved!!!

ghost commented 5 years ago

Not allowed! If the license not saying you are allowed to relicense than you are not allowed! Is that simple!

filips123 commented 5 years ago

F*cking every license include All rights reserved/Copyright notice!!! The important part are conditions after it.

ghost commented 5 years ago

Show me a GPL license which has All rights reserved in it! You are a joke! Even an Apache! Show me!

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

If the license not saying you are allowed to relicense than you are not allowed

Eh...

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

I followed all the conditions so I can use it in source. What don't you understand?

ghost commented 5 years ago

It is NOT granting you rights to OVERRIDE his copyrights! He specifically stated: ALL RIGHTS RESERVED and I see no permission for relicensing!

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

Ok, I can add

Additionally, the following licenses must be preserved:

  • ripemd implementation is licensed under BSD-3 by Markus Friedl, see _ripemd.py;
  • jacobian curve implementation is dual-licensed under MIT or public domain license, see _jacobian.py.

...to the license text if you want me to. Is that ok?

ghost commented 5 years ago

It would be the minimum!!!! But still you CAN'T relicense anything to MIT which is not your work! Only your original work can be licensed under MIT! Try to separate them and use import when you need!!!!

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

Eh... I do import when I need.

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

And they are already separated.

ghost commented 5 years ago

Your work and only your work must be in a separate file. You can't use any code from others and claim it is licensed under MIT. Yes I see when you use import... But you mixed up the code and this is not allowed. The license file should include all copyright notices and the files which licensed under them! You can't claim MIT license under anything what you did not wrote!

And they are already separated.

Show me just one file which contains only you code! Go ahead.

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

But you mixed up the code

What code did I mix?

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

Show me just one file which contains only you code! Go ahead.

Oh? Sure: sslcrypto/_ecc.py. There's also sslcrypto/openssl.py, sslcrypto/fallback/ecc.py and many others.

ghost commented 5 years ago

This is not your code. You have changed but is not your!

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

Why is it not mine? What did I copy now?

ghost commented 5 years ago

I show you just a few. Let's say from openssl.py

Most code is rewritten from cryptography.

Everything which is not originates from you are preventing you to put any copyright on it specially relicensing it! Did you "invented" all this alone in a few days?

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

BTW, check this. Even electrum guys are licensing their software under MIT and using that implementation. Can you go sue them too please?

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

Did you "invented" all this alone in a few days?

Uh... how do you define "invented"? If you're referring to ECC, I didn't but literally no one else did. If you're referring to the actual code... Well yes.

ghost commented 5 years ago

No is not your code. You also said it! It includes BSD licensed code and also proprietary not to mention cryptography. You must license it under GPLv3 and add a LINKING EXCEPTION to these licenses in your LICENSE file! Otherwise you can't distribute it at all.

ghost commented 5 years ago

@binarypunk Shut the fuck up, because you are an idiot.

"All rights reserved" is a copyright formality indicating that the copyright holder reserves, or holds for its own use, all the rights provided by copyright law.

What does this mean? This means that the person reserved COPYRIGHT. It means THEY CAN ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE THE CODE BECAUSE THEY HOLD COPYRIGHT.

By having the all rights reserved notice, and then a license, you're affirming it's your work and your rights, but you allow people to do these specific things with it.

The "All rights reserved" phrasing is a way to claim copyright, not to say any/no permissions are granted. This follows from the Buenos Aires copyright convention, which had some signatories not in the Berne Convention (notably Nigaragua and the US), and required for protection that "the reservation of the property right appeared in the work". AFAIK there are no remaining countries that have ratified the Buenos Aires convention but not Berne.

ghost commented 5 years ago

He don't hold copyright over this compilation! Period.

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

I am distributing this project under the following license:

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

Period

Not period. I guess I'm too dumb to understand how your brain works so I'd better listen to your explanations once again.

ghost commented 5 years ago

By having the all rights reserved notice, and then a license, you're affirming it's your work and your rights, but you allow people to do these specific things with it.

Yah! You allowed to buy a book and read it in private!! You can't reprint it and relicense it as your!

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

See, this project includes:

This project can be distributed under MIT and others' licenses (it's and, not or as in dual-licensing). What's the problem?

ghost commented 5 years ago

@binarypunk What you are literally saying is that every BSD-licensed project is proprietary, did you know that?

ALL bsd licenses have "All rights reserved"... now are we going to say that all BSD projects are proprietary?

Again, 1.) The phrase has no legal meaning - it's obsolete and is only used for convension. 2.) "All Rights Reserved" allows the copyright holder to retain the right to give people permission to use the code - which is precisely what the BSD license does.

ghost commented 5 years ago

You see the problem is that _ripemd.py doesn't state any license. Only states that ALL RIGHT RESERVED! some conditions and a disclaimer. Meaning it is proprietary.

You can't put any license on "others code"! That is why I highly recommend GPLv3. As I said most of the code is NOT your even in the files your claim that you wrote. I can show you pastebin, GitHub and other places from where you copied.

filips123 commented 5 years ago

@binarypunk What is then this?

ghost commented 5 years ago

@binarypunk What is then this?

We know this @filips123... But if you read it just now than show me where it says exact license like Apache, BSD or anything else or permission to relicense it.

filips123 commented 5 years ago

This is called BSD-2 Clause.

ghost commented 5 years ago

You don't need to state the license name, it's idiotic to think that. The permissions were granted, that's literally all that matters.

ghost commented 5 years ago

Not exactly @krixano he did not granted permission to copy and include his code in a compilation which is than relicensed as MIT. He said use, modify and distribute. Not to relicense!

ghost commented 5 years ago

@imachug I think you need GPLv3!

filips123 commented 5 years ago

slika

2-clause license ("Simplified BSD License" or "FreeBSD License") Linking from code with a different license: Yes

Also, this.

ghost commented 5 years ago

Yeah, I get what you're saying... it's dumb. You're a disgusting type of person that tries to take down lots of projects for technicalities. You're clearly malicious to software projects.

ghost commented 5 years ago

Exactly @filips123 Even the BSD creators, who put the "all rights reserved" line in there when they created the license thinks that you can sublicense. lol

ghost commented 5 years ago

No @krixano I'm just looking out for my and others interest. You however misleading everyone, lying to over a 100 contributors in ZeroNet, and hiding facts. Who is the dumb and shameful? You my friend. I want to help right now @imachug too and I highly recommend to use GPLv3! That is very very permissive! @krixano is a retard. don't listen this this guy @imachug ! Look what he tried to do with ZeroNet. ZeroNet should be free and open for everyone that is FREE SOFTWARE! And your compilation (because it is) would be useful for many later on! Not only for ZeroNet but for other people around the world! BSD MIT and all other shit are built for US law not for International use! Think about @imachug !

filips123 commented 5 years ago

GPLv3 [...] That is very very permissive!

That tells how much you know about licenses...

ghost commented 5 years ago

Permissive and international!

(hope for you little brain this 3 words are enough and not overloading it)

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

don't listen this this guy

lmao, I've known krixano waaaay longer before you came here

ghost commented 5 years ago

Doesn't matter @imachug he is a retard. You deserve better people around you who actually do know the law. Not some retarded German pokemon player.

purplesyringa commented 5 years ago

You know, GPL is less permissive than MIT and/or public domain. I'm thus keeping MIT as one of the most permissive licenses.