From: "Alex Graveley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: License Questions
> Hi,
>
> I am asking for clarification more than anything else. Given that I am
> not intending to redistribute OpenSSL or modify
> My opinion: if you distribute the proxy code as a separate package and
> the rest of your application doesn't call OpenSSL and your proxy and
> application aren't bundled together in one distribution, then you can
> get away with only acknowledging the use of OpenSSL in your proxy
> distributio
From: Alex Graveley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My comments below are my opinions only. Do not go around saying it's
official OpenSSL policy even though I am an OpenSSL developper.
alex> 1) What constitutes "use"? static linking, dynamic linking, runtime
alex> linking using dlopen(), all of the above?
> It isn't any different at all. When a program is run on Solaris, and
> links with a proprietary libc, it (or the person running it) is then
> forced to comply with the license restrictions of that libc, and can be
> held liable for its violation.
Right. OpenSSL's license has six elements.
Hi,
I am asking for clarification more than anything else. Given that I am
not intending to redistribute OpenSSL or modify the OpenSSL
library at all, could you explain some of the terms I've found confusing
in the openssl license?
1) What constitutes "use"? static linking, dynamic linking, run
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in using OpenSSL with my project, but I am concerned
> about license incompatibilities. My project is a library which will be
> licensed under the LGPL.
>
> I have no problem with it conforming to the OpenSSL advertising clause,
> but I would like applications which use m
Hi,
I'm interested in using OpenSSL with my project, but I am concerned
about license incompatibilities. My project is a library which will be
licensed under the LGPL.
I have no problem with it conforming to the OpenSSL advertising clause,
but I would like applications which use my library to n
