>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tyler MacDonald >Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:48 PM >To: openssl-users@openssl.org >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Licenses... > > >Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What I still have not seen from the "pro-advertisement-clause-removal" >> camp is a logical explanation of why someone cannot use >OpenSSL because of >> the so-called "advertising-clause" > > If someone is a development community, then no, there's no reason >why not. If someone is an end user, then there's lots of barriers that >throws up. Because of the political debate between the >advertising clause >and the GPL license, end users are harmed by license barriers. >I think the >freeradius-postgresql plugin was a classic example, hell, it's >what got me >really interested in the problem in the first place. Freeradius is GPL. >Postgresql has a GPL compatible license. Postgresql is greatly >enhanced by >linking against OpenSSL. By the strictest intepretation of both >the OpenSSL >and GPL licenses, freeradius can't link against something that's linked >against OpenSSL.
Not true at all for end users. The GPL clauses only come into effect when your redistributing. End users by definition do not redistribute. An end user can download freeradius and postgresql and openssl and build all of them and link them together, without violating any licensing clauses. Are you absolutely sure you have read the GPL? This is a pretty fundamental part of it. > Who in this situation is so at fault that these useful >pieces of code can't live in harmony? Honestly, I don't care >whose at fault, >I just want somebody to be willing to change a bit so this can be made >right. The freeradius people are talking about adding an >OpenSSL exemption >to their gpl, and I think that's great, but I think a much wider benefit >will happen by changes to more ubiqutous licenses, the OpenSSL license >(since OpenSSL is so useful and so used by so many people), and >the GPL (for >the same reason). > The freeradius people can simply use a different license than the GPL and problem is solved. icradius predicates freeradius by the way and it does not use a GPL license. And it does the same thing (uses a sql server as the back end instead of a flat file) The original livingston IETF reference implementation of RADIUS also did not use a GPL. radius servers are basic tools and should not have a restrictive license like the GPL in the first place. >> Hey I have an idea. Why doesen't the OpenSSL community tell >the GPL to >> modify it's license to be compliant to the OpenSSL license? >That seems to >> be a mirror of what the GPL people are demanding. What's >sauce for the >> goose is sauce for the gander. > > I think the GPL should be changed too. What I'm hoping >is that one >of the two camps will show themselves to be more progressive and less >obstructive, and the one that does so will solve more problems >quicker by >letting us go on with our lives developing and using secure >network apps. > I don't understand how changing something that isn't broken (the OpenSSL license) is being progressive. And you want to talk about being less obstructive, start with the GPL. Ted ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
