> > Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support the claim
> >that the FSF can
> >issue a variance for software whose copyright has not been
> >assigned to it?
> The original copyright holder gave the FSF this right when they used
> the GPL on their code, because the GPL isn't simply a statement of
> principles, it is a copyrighted document of the FSF that the original
> copyright holder only has permission to use if they accept all the
> terms of the license. And, one of those terms is a clause in the GPL
> that allows the FSF to change the GPL license in the future.
Which clause is that supposed to be? If this one:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
That doesn't seem to be about variances to me. Perhaps you didn't read
my
question. Again, it is "Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support the
claim that the FSF can issue a variance for software shose copyright has not
been assigned to it?" You have taken specifically this position and I'm
asking if you have any evidence for it.
If you want to change your position to argue that the FSF can get the
same
effect as a variance by issuing a new version of the GPL, then my reply
would be, "Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the
FSF can make a new version of the GPL apply to all software placed under the
GPL, even that which specifies a particular version without the phrase 'any
later version'".
Most people's position seems to be that the FSF can only change the
license
if copyright was assigned to it, no specific version of the GPL was cited by
the copyright holder, or the copyright holder specifically stated that any
later version of the GPL would be acceptable.
> I am aware this hasn't been tested in court, and would probably
> be invalidated, but I have already said
> that the entire GPL has not been tested in court, and that if it
> was parts would be invalidated, that is one of the GPL's
> weaknesses. One of the FSF's principle jobs is to try to get
> out-of-court
> settlements made whenever copyright holders want to litigate against
> infringers, specifically because the FSF -does not- want the GPL
> tested in court. So far they have been successful.
Well then it sounds like you've just refuted your own argument, doesn't
it?
Obviously, when people choose a product, they prefer as few licensing
uncertainties as possible. Having to rely on an untested principle would
likely scare a lot of people away, don't you think?
I guess it comes down to one simple question -- which is more important:
1) Keep the advertising clause. Those who are conflicted about the
compelled speech will have to make their products less secure and less
interoperable. People who say they use OpenSSL actually may not use it, but
may need to say it to be safe and may be saying it simply because they're
compelled to do so.
2) Remove the advertising clause. Those who say that they use OpenSSL
will
actually *mean* it rather than being legally required to say it, and more
software will be secure and interoperable. OpenSSL will benefit more people.
DS
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
