Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As if it weren't annoying enough to see the license getting (re)debated,
> despite the fact there's fsck all that can be done about it as things
> stand,
What we really need is to somehow get some of Eric Young and Tim
Hudson's time in person, mayb
Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> listen to yourself, your speaking as though software should be distributed
> and sold exactly like Windows server products are: aimed at the
> administrators who are just pretending to be adminstrators, and who are
> not real professionals.
> Thank goo
Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An end user can download freeradius and postgresql and openssl and
> build all of them and link them together, without violating any licensing
> clauses.
End users aren't expected to know how to use build tools or even
have them installed on th
Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I still have not seen from the "pro-advertisement-clause-removal"
> camp is a logical explanation of why someone cannot use OpenSSL because of
> the so-called "advertising-clause"
If someone is a development community, then no, there's no
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, boys and girls, however much I actually enjoy discussing the
> intricaties of licenses out the wazoo, I don't think a discussion on
> how to interpret the GPL belongs in this list. Let's move along,
> shall we?
+1... However,
Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And it's not always even that simple: for example, the freeradius
> > project's postgresql plugin links against the postgresql client library
> > (naturally). Postgresql may or may not link against OpenSSL. If it does,
> > then the freeradius-postgr
Eric,
OpenSSL has become an almost universal component in servers and
operating systems. Unfortunately, GPL types don't like linking against a
product that has an advertising clause (go figure).
I'd like to see this war end. I don't think removing the advertising
clause from SSLeay
