> All the GPL requires is that binary distributions of a GPL'd software
> must include the source, or include a written offer to make the source
> available for a nominal copying charge; it also requires that the
> license be included so that the person licensing the program knows
> that they have that right, granted by the copyright holder of the
> program. It doesn't have any "obnoxious advertising clauses" if the
> source is included, and the file LICENSE is merely placed in the
> program's directory and doesn't have to be shown during installation.
> (However, most GPL'd software distributed in binary form, at least on
> Windows, does show it as part of InstallShield's "License" screen.)
This is false. The GPL requires much more than simply that the source
code
be present. Among other things, it requires that all of the source code that
built the executable be freely available for use and redistribution
unencumbered by anything not found in the GPL. That is, you must not just
distribute the source but distribute the source along with the right to use
and redistribute that source and binaries made from that source.
Specifically, the GPL says:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
And the OpenSSL license says:
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
...
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
* software must display the following acknowledgment:
* "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
* for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)"
If we assume the executable you wish to distribute is a single work,
derivative of both prior GPL'd code and the OpenSSL library, the work as a
whole is covered by the GPL (unless you could get the right to produce the
derivative work of the GPL'd work from some source other than the GPL). By
combining the two in this way, you have imposed a further restriction on the
exercise of the GPL rights. The advertising clause makes restrictions on
advertising a condition of distribution and distribution is a GPL. So you
can produce such a work, but you cannot distribute it.
Simply put, the GPL prohibits any restrictions on the distribution of
source or binaries other than those found in the GPL itself. The OpenSSL
license contains such a restriction.
The GPL says this, too:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations
under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a
consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a
patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program
by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the
only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Or, in simple words, if the only way to distribute a work would be with
restrictions not found in the GPL, then you may not distribute the work.
DS
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
