George Staikos wrote:
> I see you cc:'d to me, but not to Ulf. Those were his words, not mine. No
> problem though. Calling it obnoxious is not slandering. It's an opinion and
> definitely a criticism. However, this is not the issue here so we can put
> that to rest.
I did a "Reply to all" with my MUA -- yours was the only address it picked up
because this list munges headers and changes "Reply-to:" to be the list (instead
of "Mail-followup-to:" or leaving it to the intelligence of the user). My
CC'ing you had little to do with the difference in importance between your
statements and Ulf's.
> IANAL. I don't care for any of this.
Have you read the GPL? Its one of the simplest licenses I've ever read (cf.
Microsoft ...). You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what the GPL says
and is trying to say. That said, being a software developer in this day and
age (in our litigious world), it is wise to know what licenses have which
effects on one's software to be a responsible member of the community. Its
unfortunate (to some degree), but true.
> I only brought this to the attention of this list because there is not
> much we can do short of using a different library or rolling our own. Many
> other people must be in this situation too, probably unknowingly. We have to
> resolve this, and if what we are doing is not allowed, it should probably be
> documented in the OpenSSL documentation.
AFAICS, its documented to some degree in the license itself, although
openssl.org should definately mention that linking against GPL code is
illegal* (*according to lawyers, or the fsf, or whoever) and print the full text
of their license on the site where they mention it.
> [While you are reading this, keep in mind that this is KDE. We have to allow
> redistribution in binary forms, on cds sold by vendors, and more. Some
> platforms will be compiling and linking with a closed source commercial
> compiler, linker and library too (ie HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris). This is not
> negotiable.]
The GPL makes explicit mention of such closed source vendor libraries -- they
are quite permitted as a special case:
"... as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the
major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which
the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
Your complaint, btw, should be more directed: either you have a problem with
your own software's license, or with the license of OpenSSL, or both. Pick an
option if you wish this to actually be resolved instead of degenerating into a
flame-war. If its with OpenSSL not being GPL compatible, OpenSSL could (at
their discretion) be tri-licensed with the BSD or LGPL licenses in conjunction
with its own license and the original SSLeay license.
PS, to quote "In case of any license issues related to OpenSSL please contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Also note: this may be an issue the FSF wants to re-investigate since the only
condition I can see in the OpenSSL license that precludes it from being linked
against a GPL program is the advertising clause. The GPL however, explicitly
states: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope." As advertising
paraphenalia has nothing to do with the acts of distribution, copying or
modification of the software, it seems to me (and IANAL) that the issue may be
moot.
--
Michael T. Babcock (PGP: 0xBE6C1895)
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock/
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
