Has MSN recently pulled a Yahoo and changed their protocols?  I tried
logging on to MSN Messenger today with Gaim and get a 'protocol not
supported' error with 'user disconnected'.

The gaim site at sourceforge does not mention this.

-- 
Todd Stephens
ICQ# 3150790
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire

it does not help, but...
http://gaim.sourceforge.net/msn.php

Todd Stephens wrote:
> Has MSN recently pulled a Yahoo and changed their protocols?  I tried
> logging on to MSN Messenger today with Gaim and get a 'protocol not
> supported' error with 'user disconnected'.
> 
> The gaim site at sourceforge does not mention this.
> 

Yevgen Muntyan wrote in article <bmkp8t$dh2$1@news.tamu.edu>:

> it does not help, but...
> http://gaim.sourceforge.net/msn.php

I guess it finally happened today or yesterday, as I know I was on there
Monday.  Oh well.  Time to make ICQ my primary I guess.

-- 
Todd Stephens
ICQ# 3150790
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire

quoting words of Todd Stephens:
> Yevgen Muntyan wrote in article <bmkp8t$dh2$1@news.tamu.edu>:
> 
>> it does not help, but...
>> http://gaim.sourceforge.net/msn.php
> 
> I guess it finally happened today or yesterday, as I know I was on
> there Monday.  Oh well.  Time to make ICQ my primary I guess.

You could try *amsn* which supports the new login protocol (v9) and let
me login normally just now. Gaim still doesn't and even lacks the msn
protocol fully in the new version. (hope they're working on it)

-- 
dick -- http://www.nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE
++ Running FreeBSD 4.8 ++ Debian GNU/Linux (Woody)
+ Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilya

Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
> quoting words of Todd Stephens:
> 
>>Yevgen Muntyan wrote in article <bmkp8t$dh2$1@news.tamu.edu>:
>>
>>
>>>it does not help, but...
>>>http://gaim.sourceforge.net/msn.php
>>
>>I guess it finally happened today or yesterday, as I know I was on
>>there Monday.  Oh well.  Time to make ICQ my primary I guess.
> 
> 
> You could try *amsn* which supports the new login protocol (v9) and let
> me login normally just now. Gaim still doesn't and even lacks the msn
> protocol fully in the new version. (hope they're working on it)
> 

I can login to msn just fine with Gaim (version 0.70). You do need one 
of the latest versions with SSL support enabled.

Stefan Johansson wrote:

> Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
>> quoting words of Todd Stephens:
>> 
>>>Yevgen Muntyan wrote in article <bmkp8t$dh2$1@news.tamu.edu>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>it does not help, but...
>>>>http://gaim.sourceforge.net/msn.php
>>>
>>>I guess it finally happened today or yesterday, as I know I was on
>>>there Monday.  Oh well.  Time to make ICQ my primary I guess.
>> 
>> 
>> You could try *amsn* which supports the new login protocol (v9) and let
>> me login normally just now. Gaim still doesn't and even lacks the msn
>> protocol fully in the new version. (hope they're working on it)
>> 
> 
> I can login to msn just fine with Gaim (version 0.70). You do need one
> of the latest versions with SSL support enabled.

If gaim is installed from ports, the default install as done by:

cd /usr/ports/net/gaim
make install clean

will NOT work with MSN. To get MSN to work, use the following (see the
Makefile for more information. Also, there IS info at the sourceforge site
and the changelogs.)

cd /usr/ports/net/gaim
make WITH_GNUTLS=yes WITHOUT_NSS=no install clean

Check the distinfo file to be sure you have 0.70 or higher.

And seeing as this relates directly to a FreeBSD port and installation, I
think it is safe to say it is no longer OT.

JE

John Eggert <finarfinjge@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]
> cd /usr/ports/net/gaim
> make WITH_GNUTLS=yes WITHOUT_NSS=no install clean
[...]

Any reason why GNUTLS is supported, but OpenSSL is not by the
developers of gaim?

-- 
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well 
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

David Magda wrote:

> John Eggert <finarfinjge@hotmail.com> writes:
> [...]
>> cd /usr/ports/net/gaim
>> make WITH_GNUTLS=yes WITHOUT_NSS=no install clean
> [...]
> 
> Any reason why GNUTLS is supported, but OpenSSL is not by the
> developers of gaim?
> 

Now David, you are exposing me for the neophyte that I am. I was able to get
the program running, but that is about the extent of my skills as a
programmer. I'm still trying to master discrete mathematics and fundamental
algorithms. I suspect that the developers are more concerned with license
than functionality though.

JE

quoting words of John Eggert:
> cd /usr/ports/net/gaim
> make WITH_GNUTLS=yes WITHOUT_NSS=no install clean
> 
> Check the distinfo file to be sure you have 0.70 or higher.

I have gaim working agian too. The newest version 0.71 from ports did
not want to install properly. (Some nss3 part was broken or compiled
with errors). So I used options "with_gnutls=yes without_nss=yes" and
gaim works fine now.

-- 
dick -- http://www.nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE
++ Running FreeBSD 4.8 ++ Debian GNU/Linux (Woody)
+ Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilya

In article <86ptgwpycy.fsf@number6.magda.ca>,
David Magda  <dmagda+trace031014@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:
>John Eggert <finarfinjge@hotmail.com> writes:
>[...]
>> cd /usr/ports/net/gaim
>> make WITH_GNUTLS=yes WITHOUT_NSS=no install clean
>[...]
>
>Any reason why GNUTLS is supported, but OpenSSL is not by the
>developers of gaim?

The OpenSSL license is incompatible with the GPL because it
imposes extra restrictions upon users of the software. That 
generally means you are not allowed to link OpenSSL to 
GPL'ed applications. 

While few people care about this in practice, it is a frequent
problem for Debian Linux, and as a response developers who
want their software in Debian often switch to GNUTLS or add
a special exception for OpenSSL to their license.

See, for example
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg00072.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200210/msg00113.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00072.html

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

galactus@stack.nl (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet) writes:
[...]
> While few people care about this in practice, it is a frequent
> problem for Debian Linux, and as a response developers who want
> their software in Debian often switch to GNUTLS or add a special
> exception for OpenSSL to their license.
[...]

Are the API calls the same? Are any there technical reasons why it
would not be possible to link in OpenSSL instead of GNUTLS?

-- 
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well 
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

David Magda wrote:

> galactus@stack.nl (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet) writes:
> [...]
>> While few people care about this in practice, it is a frequent
>> problem for Debian Linux, and as a response developers who want
>> their software in Debian often switch to GNUTLS or add a special
>> exception for OpenSSL to their license.
> [...]
> 
> Are the API calls the same? Are any there technical reasons why it
> would not be possible to link in OpenSSL instead of GNUTLS?
> 

Hello David:

Apparently Gaim was originally linked to OpenSSL. GNUthere GNUis
GNUsomething GNUin GNUthe GNUlicense GNUthat GNUoffends GNUstallman.
Even though the license certainly seems to be an open source and free
license, it restricts the ability of linked source to change the license
from the OpenSSL to the GPL. As the nice folks at GNU would tell you:
That's Free Speech. You can say anything as long as we can coopt your
license.

The offending part of the OpenSSL license is:

The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
derivative of this code cannot be changed.  i.e. this code cannot simply be
copied and put under another distribution licence
[including the GNU Public Licence.]

This more than anything illustrates the restrictiveness of the GPL.

JE

In article <dejkb.8310$Z_2.609744@news20.bellglobal.com>,
John Eggert  <finarfinjge@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Even though the license certainly seems to be an open source and free
>license, it restricts the ability of linked source to change the license
>from the OpenSSL to the GPL. As the nice folks at GNU would tell you:
>That's Free Speech. You can say anything as long as we can coopt your
>license.

That's not really true. I can combine two works under different
licenses and license the result under my own license, as long
as those two licenses let me. That does not mean those works
now suddenly are under my license, only my combination is.

For example, there's BSD-licensed code in Windows NT. That does
not mean NT is BSD-licensed or that the BSD code now is only
under an MS license.

The problem is that the OpenSSL license requires you to put
something in your advertisements, and the GPL forbids this
type of restriction. Therefore it is impossible to comply
with both licenses, and so the combination is illegal.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

In article <867k32w9p7.fsf@number6.magda.ca>,
David Magda  <dmagda+trace031014@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:
>galactus@stack.nl (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet) writes:
>[...]
>> While few people care about this in practice, it is a frequent
>> problem for Debian Linux, and as a response developers who want
>> their software in Debian often switch to GNUTLS or add a special
>> exception for OpenSSL to their license.
>[...]
>
>Are the API calls the same? Are any there technical reasons why it
>would not be possible to link in OpenSSL instead of GNUTLS?

As far as I know the two are interface-compatible. The only
problem I'm aware of is the licensing issue.

Note that end users are free to replace GNUTLS with OpenSSL;
it's distribution of the combination that is forbidden.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:

> In article <dejkb.8310$Z_2.609744@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> John Eggert  <finarfinjge@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Even though the license certainly seems to be an open source and free
>>license, it restricts the ability of linked source to change the license
>>from the OpenSSL to the GPL. As the nice folks at GNU would tell you:
>>That's Free Speech. You can say anything as long as we can coopt your
>>license.
> 
> That's not really true. I can combine two works under different
> licenses and license the result under my own license, as long
> as those two licenses let me. That does not mean those works
> now suddenly are under my license, only my combination is.
> 
> For example, there's BSD-licensed code in Windows NT. That does
> not mean NT is BSD-licensed or that the BSD code now is only
> under an MS license.
> 
> The problem is that the OpenSSL license requires you to put
> something in your advertisements, and the GPL forbids this
> type of restriction. Therefore it is impossible to comply
> with both licenses, and so the combination is illegal.
> 
> Arnoud
> 

My mistake: The offending code is:

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
   must display the following acknowledgement:
   "This product includes cryptographic software written by
   Eric Young (eay@cryptsoft.com)"
   The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the library
   being used are not cryptographic related :-).

And/Or:

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
   software must display the following acknowledgment:
   "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
   for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)"

4. The names "OpenSSL Toolkit" and "OpenSSL Project" must not be used to
   endorse or promote products derived from this software without
   prior written permission. For written permission, please contact
   openssl-core@openssl.org.

Probably #4. And hence the rest of my post still stands. GNU's version of
free speech is: You can say anything as long was we can coopt your license.

JE

In article <v4xkb.43$aw5.12126@news20.bellglobal.com>,
John Eggert  <finarfinjge@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
>> The problem is that the OpenSSL license requires you to put
>> something in your advertisements, and the GPL forbids this
>> type of restriction. Therefore it is impossible to comply
>> with both licenses, and so the combination is illegal.
>
>My mistake: The offending code is:
>
>3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
>   must display the following acknowledgement:

That's the clause that is incompatible with the GPL, yes.

>Probably #4. And hence the rest of my post still stands. GNU's version of
>free speech is: You can say anything as long was we can coopt your license.

I do not see how the GPL can "coopt" someone's license. If
my license forbids linking to GPL'ed code, there is no way
you can GPL my code. The standard BSD license allows
distribution under any terms, as long as the copyright notices
remain intact. This means it allows distribution under GPL
terms. However, if you take just those bits out of a GPL'ed
program, the license of those bits is the _BSD_ and not
the GPL.

You cannot grant permissions on third party code unless
the copyright holder lets you. It does not matter that you
grant permissions using the GPL. If you want to distribute
combinations of code from multiple sources, you need
permission from all sources to do so under the license you
want to use for the combination. 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point you're making,
but if you mean that the GPL can apply to code not
released as GPL, you're wrong. 

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:

> 
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point you're making,
> but if you mean that the GPL can apply to code not
> released as GPL, you're wrong.
> 
> Arnoud
> 

You can't have it both ways. Either you can freely link openssl to GPL code
or GPL applies to (by forbidding the use of) the code not released under
the GPL (my dictionary shows coopt as: "To lure to join one's own system"
from Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language
Unabridged, Second Edition, 1977). 

JE

In article <VDAkb.110$aw5.27163@news20.bellglobal.com>,
John Eggert  <finarfinjge@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
>> Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point you're making,
>> but if you mean that the GPL can apply to code not
>> released as GPL, you're wrong.
>
>You can't have it both ways. Either you can freely link openssl to GPL code
>or GPL applies to (by forbidding the use of) the code not released under
>the GPL

The GPL applies to the Gaim code. The BSD+advertising license
applies to the OpenSSL code. Only the authors of the respective
software packages can change those licenses.

Someone making a derivative work of both by combining both
into a new program (secure-gaim or something) must have
permission from the authors of both to make the combination,
and to distribute the combination. In other words, he needs
to fulfil the requirements of both licenses when distributing
the derivative work.

The GPL allows distribution of derivative works only if those
are distributed under the terms of the GPL. The BSD license
allows distribution of derivative works under any terms of your
choosing, as long as you don't touch the copyright notices.

This means that you can make a derivative work and distribute
that under the terms of the GPL, *because the BSD license
allows you to*. It does not mean the BSD code suddenly is
under GPL. It means a derivative work is under GPL. I can
strip out the original bits and use those under _BSD_ license
in my own work.

In other words, the GPL does not apply to OpenSSL (it cannot
since the OpenSSL authors did not license it under GPL). 
A derivative work of GPL'ed code needs to be under GPL or
it cannot be distributed. It is allowed by the BSD license to
make derivative works and to distribute those, even if the
license of the derivative work is GPL. This is why Linux for
example can have BSD code in its kernel.

However, with OpenSSL there is a problem. Its license is not
just the BSD license, but also says "you must put the following
in your advertisement". The GPL does not require you to do
this. As the GPL forbids people to put restrictions on the
rights granted by it, it is impossible to meet both the GPL
and the OpenSSL license. You cannot require an advertisement
with a particular text and at the same time forbid such an 
advertising text. 

As a result, the derivative work secure-gaim is not allowed
to be distributed since you cannot comply with the license
of one of its parts. Still, at no point has the OpenSSL
code "become" GPL licensed.

> (my dictionary shows coopt as: "To lure to join one's own system"
>from Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language
>Unabridged, Second Edition, 1977). 

The word "lure" suggests evil intent. It is perfectly
normal for a license to put restrictions on what licensees
can do with the software, including what terms they can use
for their derivative works.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> 
> The GPL allows distribution of derivative works only if those
> are distributed under the terms of the GPL. The BSD license
> allows distribution of derivative works under any terms of your
> choosing, as long as you don't touch the copyright notices.

In all of that, this little paragraph pretty much says you agree with my
point.

Thanks.

JE