> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Looking for an HTTPS client for NT C/C++
>
>
>
> Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > I'm not convinced by your argument that accepting the advertising
> > restriction restricts your ability to distribute the code,
> since you are
> > always free to accept the advertising restriction, and
> hence can always
> > distribute the code. But this is not relevant to the
> question, anyway.
>
> That doesn't make sense. That's like saying that if you
> have to pay me
> $1,000 to use your car, that doesn't restrict your ability to
> use your car,
> since you can always pay me the money and hence you can always use it.
> Obviously, any restriction (by definition) restricts your ability by
> imposing conditions upon you that wouldn't be there without
> the restriction.
>
> > Finally, I should point out, once more, that we (that is,
> the OpenSSL
> > team) _cannot_ change Eric's licence, so we can _do nothing_ about
> > advertising clauses. Hence, it would make sense for the community to
> > find ways to live with this instead of attempting to apply
> pressure on
> > us to fix the unfixable.
>
> I appreciate that. I certainly am not trying to put any
> pressure on
> anybody.
>
> If, however, others do wish to apply pressure, they
> should apply the
> pressure to the entity with the ability to remedy this
> situation. That would
> be the FSF, who could release a new version of the GPL that
> was compatible
> with the OpenSSL library's license. The new license would
> immediately take
> affect on all past and future GPLed code and permit the
> incorporation of
> OpenSSL into all past and future GPLed projects.
I'm a bit afraid that FSF (i.e. rms) has already STRONGLY stated that the
GPL is and would remain incompatible with ANY other open source license,
except the GPL :-);
The only solution, wrt GPL, is to structure your application so that it CAN
be used without openSSL; THEN releasing your code under the GPL will not
contaminate openSSL with the GPL.
This is another example of the "better is the ennemy of good" (I don't know
if you say that in English; it's a well-known French saying: "Le mieux est
l'ennemi du bien"). GPL by wanting to force people to stay in the open
source world is in fact restricting people from living in it.
My own NSH opinion is that you probably coudl release your code under the
openSSL, or BSD, license; if you want to , you may then add a clause saying
that people distributing your code should provide the source code used to
create the executable code, with the right to redistribute it, as long as it
can be rebuilt against the standard openSSL code, or distribute th echange
they've made to openSSL to allow building this application.
However IANAL and frankly I would personally NOT go in this direction and
would release my code under the openSSL license :-)
Just my .02$
Bernard
PS: Although always attracting people, I'm not sure this GPL-compatibility
issue should be discussed at length once more. Perhaps a entry in a FAQ
could just summarize the issue (with mention of the definitive and
authoritative optinion of RMS) with indication to people willing to release
their work under an open-source license to try to avoid th eGPL wich is
marginaly NOT open-source.
--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
