On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:51:52PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:44:39PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:34:33PM +0000, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > > Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html > > > > > > > A few programs link currently the old non-GPL libmysqlclient10 in order > > > > to retain compatibility with other free licenses which have known > > > > problems and require exceptions (e.g. openssl). AFAIK the new > > > > statement should allow all those program to link the current > > > > libmysqlclient instead. See proftpd-mysql for an example of such kind > > > > of programs. > > > > > > Could you readjust my glasses? You explicitely mention OpenSSL but I > > > cannot see it on the webpage. Is 'BSD license "July 22 1999"' supposed > > > to apply? > > > > > > > Mmm, I'm quite miopic too, anyway both licenses in openssl are bsd-like > > (with advertising clauses) and they are compatible with OpenSource > > Initiative > > criteria, as pointed in http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php. > > So they are acceptable for MySQL FOSS exception. > > What, even the SSLeay license? It's not a BSD license, and fuck knows > what "compatible with OpenSource Initiative criteria" is supposed to > mean. >
MySQL exception says: "Due to the many variants of some of the above licenses, we require that any version follow the Open Source Definition by the Open Source Initiative (see opensource.org)" Traditional BSD license is listed among possible ones there. About SSLeay, if so someone should remove the initial clause in /usr/share/doc/openssl/copyright that states something false. "Actually both licenses are BSD-style Open Source licenses". Anyway if MySQL folks would add both licenses in its exception could be fine, I think. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
