Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as > > free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of > > any other licenses in main that have that requirement. > > OpenSSL, perhaps. It has a BSDish license followed by: > > * 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.] > > Since the license permits binary-only distribution, you have to allow > this for derived works you publish as well.
Well, then we're already breaking the license. OpenSSL is covered by two different licenses with two different advertising clauses. Rather, I take that statement as a clarification, not as an additional term. The SSLeay author just had a bad understanding of the law, and is prohibiting something that you can't do anyway. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
