In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:07:31 -0400, Ryan Shon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rshon> Presumably, a program, e.g. a web browser, could be written rshon> which uses OpenSSL (whether through linking to the libraries or rshon> by including actual pieces of OpenSSL code), and this browser rshon> would not have to be licensed under the OpenSSL license. This rshon> would be a "product derived from OpenSSL", and users could be rshon> forbidden to redistribute the browser in source or binary forms. rshon> Is this a correct interpretation of what a "product derived" rshon> is? I'm actually unsure about that. Richard Stallman would probably interpret it that way, but I wouldn't. Using unmodified components from another package in your own package does not constitute derivation, in my opinion. But again, IANAL. rshon> If a person were to take a full OpenSSL distribution and rshon> completely rewrite some source files, but not all source files, rshon> of which libcrypto.a is composed, then compile and distribute rshon> the resulting libraries libssl.a and libcrypto.a, would rshon> libssl.a be a "redistribution", and would libcrypto.a be a rshon> "product derived" or a "redistribution"? If we look at the separate libraries, then yes. However, I would assume that you would distribute this changed source in the same manner as the original is distributed, in one package. In that case, that package is a modified version of OpenSSL, and therefore a product derived from OpenSSL. Cheers, Richard ----- Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://richard.levitte.org/ "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C.S. Lewis ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
