>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard >Levitte - VMS Whacker >Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:45 PM >To: openssl-users@openssl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Licenses... > > >Oi, you're quite the speaker, aren't ya? > >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >on Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:28:47 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >tedm> OpenSSL needs to stick with the license that most closely >tedm> reflects the philosophy of it's authors. That is, right now, an >tedm> "advert clause" license, that is why the "advert clause" is in >tedm> there. If some people in the community have a problem with >tedm> that, that is their problem, not mine and not OpenSSL's. > >Uhmm, you pretend to speak for the OpenSSL authors (Hi, I'm one of >them!), and I can't recall you having asked us at all what our opinion >is.
If the OpenSSL authors (you included) wanted to change the license you all would have done so, it's not like you don't have write access to the source and cannot change it. You could change it right now if you want. So don't pretend that the OpenSSL authors don't want the advert clause. If you all didn't, you would have changed it. > >I, for one, would like to see the advert clause removed, and I believe >I +1'd the original post in this thread so show my personal approval. >As far as I've understood the story, that the way the OpenSSL license >is formed is a more or less direct result of conditions made by Eric >Young. Now, Eric isn't an OpenSSL author and has never been. He's >the author of SSLeay, from which OpenSSL is derived (well, continued >upon would be a more correct term). To kindly ask him to allow us to >have a less restrictive license is a perfectly sensible thing to do, >whatever the reasons! > Do it then. >I actually don't know if the rest of the OpenSSL team agree with me or >not, but every time there's been a discussion about the license (and >this is definitely not the first time), it has always been ended by >saying that we're bound by the desires of Eric Young. My conclusion >is that most of the OpenSSL team would like to remove the advert >clause *if we could*. > Do it, then. >Please do not pretend to speak for us when you haven't even asked! > Please don't pretend the OpenSSL team doesen't want the advert clause when the clause is present in the license. If the team doesen't want it, they know where the editors are. >tedm> >Do you *really* feel that way? That anything anyone gets out of >tedm> >OpenSSL is manna from the gods and they have no right to >tedm> >criticize it -- >tedm> >tedm> Pretty much. Don't you? > >Speaking only for myself, I would say that anyone has the right to >criticize! That's part of freedom of speach, and one that is actually >exercised every day in form of bug reports! Bug reports are not criticism. This is pure political correctness bullcrap. A bug report is simply an observation of a FACT - which is a defect exists. FACTS are not criticisms. Criticism is a subjective observation of something that is not a fact. For example, it is a fact that an advert clause exists in the OpenSSL license. If is a fact that the OpenSSL team wants it there since it is there. It is NOT a fact that it is bad or good - that is a subjective opinion. If I make an observation that something in OpenSSL's code is not functioning as expected, this is reporting a fact, not a criticism. If I say the OpenSSL license is bad, that is a criticism. I will refer you to the discussion on this, here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=critique specifically the statement: "...part because the verb criticize, once neutral between praise and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense..." > If we weren't open to >critique, how the hell would we develop to anything but pickers of our >own navel fuzz? > This is a very clever statement since "critique" and "criticize" are regarded as having different meanings by most people. I was using the common meaning of the word, the negative sense, whihc I am sure you were aware of, and you are flip-flopping between the negative and the neutral sense of the word. This license discussion on the advert clause is not a critique. It is a criticism. If it was a critique it would include some tangible real life examples of both sides of the issue. >tedm> If the removal of the advert clause would bring huge benefits to >tedm> thousands of people that might be something. You have not >tedm> established this. > >This is a regularly reoccuring topic, maybe that's something to >consider? > Certainly! >tedm> I will point out though for middleware producers, that the >tedm> benefits of not having to reinvent the wheel have some cost; >tedm> tracking this stuff is one of them. And I will further point >tedm> out that EVEN IF the OpenSSL license was modded to help these >tedm> people, that any middleware producer IS STILL GOING TO HAVE TO >tedm> REVIEW -all- licenses of -all- software they use, because they >tedm> will not know if there is a gotcha in any of those. > >You do have a point there. > >tedm> Keep in mind that the courts have not ruled on the idea that >tedm> just because you link your code into GPL code that you lose all >tedm> rights to control licensing of your portion of the code. This >tedm> is a revolutionary idea of the FSF's and it is frequently >tedm> pointed out in legal circles how this is one of the big weak >tedm> spots of the GPL, and would likely be invalidated. >tedm> >tedm> My reading of copyright law is that the GPL cannot control how I >tedm> license my copyrighted software just because I link an object >tedm> module into their code or vis-versa. The FSF vehemently >tedm> disagrees and this linking issue is one of the central reasons >tedm> why the GPL is called a viral license, and it is one of the >tedm> linchpins of the argument that the advertising clause in OpenSSL >tedm> is a burden. > >Are you a lawyer? I know of two lawyers you do not agree with you, at >least as far as I understand what they write. On of them is the >author of the GPL. > And you would expect the author of the GPL to have a different opinion? A lawyers opinion is only a bit less worthless than that of the general public. It only matters when a courtroom has examined the question. If lawyers knew what they were doing then politics wouldn't be so screwed up, since most of the politicians are lawyers. >tedm> The law already has provisions for that. Regardless of what >tedm> Jack Smith wants, the law says if I'm paying him hourly to write >tedm> code, the copyright to the code belongs to me, not to him. I >tedm> don't really have any feelings one way or another on his desire, >tedm> because it's not a decision for him to make - per the law, not >tedm> per me. > >You mean the *american* copyright law. Please be specific, as there >are some differences between countries. There is one article in the >Berne Convention, on which most copyright law is based today, that >american copyright law disregards; article 6bis, Moral Rights, see >http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html . That article >does give the actual author the right to have a say on how his/her >work is used. Swedish copyright law implements that article in its >copyright law. > That section only gives the author rights to object if his work is modified to be prejudicial to his honor or reputation, independent of his economic rights. As it applies to the discussion of employer/employee it would basically say that if Jack Smith objected to his employer labeling the software as "written by Jack Smith" and proceeded to use it to do something Jack Smith found to be dishonoring, that Jack Smith could do something about it. But if the employer didn't put Jack Smith's name on the software and proceeded to use it to do something Jack Smith didn't like, well what then? How would this be dishonoring to Jack Smith's reputation since nobody would know he wrote it? In other words, I fail to see how this section would apply at all in the Jack Smith example. In any case I think this section is rather dangerous since all satire can be construed as damaging the authors reputation, even when the point is to make a joke about it. You talk about stifling speech and criticisms, well this section is pretty much guarenteeing that. >tedm> The GPL community could at least give a shot at leading by >tedm> example - by accepting license other than the GPL. > >They do. If you read their own pages on it, they have a list of them, >and will say for each of them if it is compatible with the GPL or not. > That isn't being accepting of other licenses. And by compatible they only mean "legal to replace their license with our own" they don't mean "a good and reasonable license that follows the idea of open source. Ted ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
