update.... On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, I wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: > >>On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote: >> >>[reply to the real post later] >> >>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >>> >> Let's go to another case: You do the same for OpenSSL. You've violated >>> >> the OpenSSL license, since it expressly forbids linking with GPL code. >>> >> Yet OpenSSL is DFSG free. Your example fails to make any difference >>> >> because you've stretched it so far. >>> > >>> >Well, I don't see where in the OpenSSL license you see that. But it >>> >is GPL-incompatible, so the GPL forbids linking with the OpenSSL >>> >code. >>> >>> See the thread started with >>> >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00052.html >>> >>> More precisely: >>> >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00069.html >>> >>> BTW, minor correction. I lumped the ssleay license in with the openssl >>> license in my mind. You're violating the licensing of openssl, but not >>> the openssl license, if that makes any sense. >>> >> >>That's a very strange clause to include. That license is >>*significantly* more restrictive than the GPL, since it's terms can >>never be changed, except by the copyright holder. In fact, it would >>seem that that clause prohibits linking (at least statically) with any >>code not under that license (since that would neccessarily change the >>license of the derived work). Unless it only applies to verbatim >>copies, which would be weird (and totally pointless). But under the >>obvious reading of it, it clearly prohibits any sort of proprietary >>software based on the code. >> >>Weird. Why do we consider it legal to link OpenSSL-licensed code with >>ssleay-licensed code? It didn't seem to be mentioned on that thread. > >Because technically OpenSSL didn't change the license. They still use >the 4 clause BSDL, which is what EAY used, hence my portion of the thread. >Raul and I were arguing over rewriting a GPL version of OpenSSL: I said >that OpenSSL was already DFSG free, so Debian shouldn't get behind a >rewrite, Raul said his proposed rewrite was technical in nature. The >second message was when he realized it'd have to be a ground up procedure >because of the ssleay license. The thread died at that point: I was >satisfied that the rewrite wasn't just a BSDL purge and Raul I assume >either went off to rewrite or found the task to be not worth the effort. > >ISTR that there was a message that made a better cite of the ssleay >license, but I guess it didn't make the archives or was in an offlist >tangent. Found it: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00064.html That thread went on almost as long as this one... >> sam th >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ >> GnuPG Key: >> http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key >> > > -- You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money? Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
