>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard >Levitte - VMS Whacker >Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:41 AM >To: openssl-users@openssl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Licenses... > > >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >on Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:44:33 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >tedm> If the OpenSSL authors (you included) wanted to change the >tedm> license you all would have done so, it's not like you don't have >tedm> write access to the source and cannot change it. You could >tedm> change it right now if you want. So don't pretend that the >tedm> OpenSSL authors don't want the advert clause. If you all >tedm> didn't, you would have changed it. > >And here, you pretend to know everything that's going on behind the >scene. We (well, the OpenSSL core team, which is our legal body of >sorts) have approached Eric on this subject, more than once. >
Richard, Since SSLeay is part of OpenSSL, Eric Young is by definition an OpenSSL author. Therefore my statement is valid, as much as you may not like it. That is, the OpenSSL authors (you included) DON'T want to change the license. I am sure you are going to squawk and claim that you want to change it. But, Richard, you appointed yourself to talk for the rest of the OpenSSL authors when you started arguing with me. So your personal preferences are not what you are arguing. Your arguing what the group wants. And since (apparently) the OpenSSL group does things by consensus, and there is no consensus to change, then by definition the OpenSSL group does not want to change. If the OpenSSL group consensus was that this advert clause was that onerous, you would as a group, excluding the developers like Eric who want the clause intact, excise the portion of the code that has a problem and rewrite it. This is exactly what the GPL does when they find code they want with some undigestible bits in it (ie: incompatible with GPL) they rewrite the bits. The OpenSSL Project has the same option. > >tedm> specifically the statement: >tedm> >tedm> "...part because the verb criticize, once neutral between praise >tedm> and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense..." > >Well, we all choose our own interpretation, don't we? > I could choose to interpret black as white and get myself killed at the next Zebra crossing (crosswalk for those who haven't read Douglas Adams) >tedm> >tedm> That isn't being accepting of other licenses. And by compatible >tedm> they only mean "legal to replace their license with our own" >tedm> they don't mean "a good and reasonable license that follows the >tedm> idea of open source. > >Don't be ridiculous, noone can replace someone else's license without >their explicit consent! > What the GPL does is overlay the GPL over code that they use in their GPL projects. The original license may remain but since the GPL is more restrictive, it becomes the defacto license. When the original license says you can do whatever you want with the code, why then doing whatever you want also means changing the code license for code you create from the original. Ted ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
