On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 07:12:01AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > I daresay that I, Aaron, and a number of other regulars here (and on > license-discuss@opensource.org) are familiar enough with the usual sort > of copyright law, and how licensing operates as a legal mechanism under > it, to see that Young's added clause, indeed, simply cements into his > licence what is already a fundamental concept of copyright law: If you > don't own it, you simply cannot relicense it, by definition.
[ I'd like to note that I don't stand behind the comments that I posted as a messager. ] You know, what I find confusing about this whole discussion is whether it pertains to an original work or a derived work. I find it quite obvious that one can't simply relicense _OpenSSL_, as it is. But with changing the name or some other minor detail to create a derived work, the BSD license (either revision) allows you to select the license under which you will distribute that derived work. When I first read Young's clause, my impression was that it meant to apply to derived works, so one could not produce a GPL'd varient of OpenSSL. I do not know if this is truly the case.
