>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Schwartz >Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:10 PM >To: openssl-users@openssl.org >Subject: RE: Licenses... > > > >> This was the same argument used by the Linux people to get >the University >> of California, Berkeley to revoke it's "advert clause" >> >> However, once that happened the GPL people simply grabbed >what bits they >> wanted and ran off. Berkeley software hasn't seen any additional >> attention or >> benefit from the GPL people as a result of revoking this, and neither >> will >> OpenSSL. > > Bluntly, that seems like a seriously demented view to me. > > That the GPL people grabbed the bits they wanted and >used them to improve >their software sounds good to me. I would hope that an organization that >offers free software isn't acting only in its own interest. It should >consider as an intrinsic good that its software is being used by and >benefitting people. >
You didn't read the post, or if you read it you didn't understand it. 99.9999% of the people who used BSD do not insist on BSD modifying it's license. They take what they want use it per the terms of the license. For 30 some-odd years nobody had a problem with the BSD's "advert" clause in using it's software. Then the GPL came along and insisted on FreeBSD changing the license so they could use it - and the quid-pro-quo was the reason FreeBSD was to do this was that it would get so many benefits in return. FreeBSD did their end, GPL didn't do it's end. It would have been better if FreeBSD had simply told GPL "sorry, we aren't going to revoke our advert clause" and left it at that. Of course, there was a lot more to the story than this, but essentially boiled down, this is what it was. > What is your metric by which success is measured? It's >obviously not how >many people use the software and how useful they find it to be. > > If GPL people "strip mine" OpenSSL and take the parts >they consider good >and leave the parts they consider bad and put together a better and more >standards-compliant ssl and cryptography library because of it, >why is that >not a good thing that should be given weight in the consideration of the >benefits of making the license more GPL-compatible? > I never said it wasn't. But, that's not OpenSSL's problem. The GPL people can simply apply the OpenSSL license to whatever product they create, if they want to strip mine OpenSSL. This isn't a problem if they are writing fresh code. It is only a problem (in the GPL's mind) when they want to intermix existing GPL code that is already licensed under GPL with OpenSSL code. But what your missing is that virtually all existing GPL code is copyrighted by the developers that wrote it. Those people can simply release it under OpenSSL. Don't you understand this about GPL yet? This is how MySQL works. The copyright to MySQL is held by the mysq company. The commercial version of mysql (if you buy it that is) comes lacking a GPL license. It's the same source as the GPL version but the copyright holder has chosen to release mysql as a GPL-licensed version and as a commercial-licensed version, which is perfectly permitted under copyright law. The FSF's answer when this loophole is pointed out is "well everyone writing GPL should reassign their copyrights to the FSF" That is not a bad idea - except virtually nobody does it. If a developer who has a big GPL-licensed project wants to intermix OpenSSL then all he needs to do is release 2 versions of his product - one under the GPL which does not have OpenSSL linked in, and a second under the OpenSSL license that does have OpenSSL linked in. (or under a different BSD-style license, etc.) > If you look at my views and who I am, you'll find that >I'm probably one of >the strongest and most vocal GPL critics out there. You can do the same with me and you will find I've never advocated GPL either. > However, my >complaint is >generally that the GPL prevents people from using GPL software >to improve >non-GPL software, causing overall software quality, security, and >interoperability to suffer. But it really doesen't. It is a philosophical, not a legal, issue. The problem is that people that release stuff licensed under the GPL usually have blinders on and simply will not release anything they write under anything but the GPL - not because of the legalities, but because they have a religious ferver that the world must be GPL and there is no room for anything else. In any case I would dispute this. If you look at FreeBSD, the entire system is built with what - gcc. That's a case of using GPL software to improve non-GPL software right there. >I think people wrote write open >source software >for the public good should be more interested in helping people >by allowing >them to use their software than territorial turf wars to exclude people. > > Isn't making as much software as possible more secure an >inherent good? >Think about the forces of evil that secure computing work against -- you >know what they are. All of that is why the BSD license is really the "free" license, the GPL license is anything but free. Yet, the FSF would have you believe otherwise and is busy brainwashing everyone they can find. The strongest Open Source market is one in which all "free" licenses are used and nobody is discriminated against. FreeBSD and it's ports distribution manges to do this very well. OpenSSL's "advert clause" license has just as much right to be in the Open Source community as the GPL does. If the GPL camp was willing to work with other licenses they would figure out how to do it without being a problem for themselves, just as FreeBSD figured out how to use GPLized software and many other more restrictive licenses than that, without contaminating it's own philosophy. The problem is I see most of the GPL-pushers acting exactly like the Microsquash camp. They have no tolerance for any other licensing than their own. Ted ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
