Hi Eric, I hope you leave the license alone.
I have seen increasing examples of GPL code used in embedded products, and for all the philosophizing the GPL people do, they roll over when it comes to suing people. Take for example the ActionTec DSL modem, this is sold by ActionTec and runs embedded Linux. It is the standard modem Qwest sends out for DSL there are probably 100,000 or more of these in service in the Western United States. Yet you cannot obtain the modified GNU code from the ActionTec website as required by GPL. Oh sure, you can obtain stuff like iptables from ActionTec, or thttpd, but not the modified bootloader code or the black box interface itself, so it makes it impossible to create your own firmware, or modify theirs, which defeats the purpose of the GPL. I have not read a peep in the trade rags about FSF or anyone in the GPL camp filing a lawsuit against ActionTec against GPL violations. All the Linux people want to do is to simply take OpenSSL and apply a GPL license to it, and get rid of your license. That's what all this is about. They are happy to see the GPL used everywhere but when it comes to putting their money where their philosophy is, they run for the nearest exit. When I see the GPL filing license violation lawsuits and actually standing up for the license they are advocating, then I would say to do as Tyler says and modify your license. But until then, let them write their own openssl if they don't like your license. They can always use a different license than GPL. Further, what Tyler is saying is incorrect anyway. A GPL program can be distributed that links against openSSL. All they have to do is compile it to dynamically link at runtime. It won't run if the dynamic openssl libraries aren't present on the system, of course, but it is only when you distribute a GPL program and openssl as a unitized whole, (whether statically compiled or dynamically linked) does the GPL license on redistribution come into play. And, I might point out that the GPL itself requires a copy of the GPL to be distributed with the program, so for them to claim your license has an advertising clause is extremely hypocritical. Ted >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tyler MacDonald >Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 11:04 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: openssl-users@openssl.org >Subject: Licenses... > > >Eric, > OpenSSL has become an almost universal component in servers and >operating systems. Unfortunately, GPL types don't like linking against a >product that has an advertising clause (go figure). > > I'd like to see this war end. I don't think removing the >advertising >clause from SSLeay and OpenSSL would be admitting defeat, or even really >doing anything bad. Everybody *knows* what openssl is nowadays, >it doesn't >need to be advertised anymore. > > Things are going in two directions right now with GPL >projects; some >products are modifying their GPL to add a special exemption to >allow linking >against OpenSSL. Other products are moving to GnuTLS instead. >Other projects >get left in the middle, breaking the "law". > > And it's not always even that simple: for example, the freeradius >project's postgresql plugin links against the postgresql client library >(naturally). Postgresql may or may not link against OpenSSL. If it does, >then the freeradius-postgresql plugin is breaking the GPL's >rules, but how >the postgresql client library was compiled isn't neccessarily under >freeradius's control. > > I think that these programmers could be more happy and productive >and get back to moving our planet forward if they didn't have >to spend so >much time thinking about licensing issues, coding around the >problem, etc. >Can you please, please consider removing this requirement from the next >version of SSLeay's license, so that OpenSSL can follow suit, >so that we can >go back to solving the *real* problems instead of all this legal mumbo >jumbo? > > Thanks, > Tyler > >______________________________________________________________________ >OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org >User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org >Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 4/8/2006 > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
