The manual must include both the OpenSSL license text (what you
quoted) and the SSLeay license text (which is also to be found in the
LICENSE file). It just needs to be in the printed documentation or,
where no printed documentation exists, in a LICENSE file or
equivalent.
-Kyle H
On Mon, Jan 26
> Ah, so then your going to retract your statement that:
> "EULAs are agreements, you must actually agree to them to use the work"
> because clearly you can use the work here (the Windows software)
> without agreeing to the EULA.
No, that is the definition of an EULA.
To give an
- Original Message -
From: "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 3:39 AM
Subject: RE: license question
>
> > > These are EULAs. I'm talking about pure copyright licenses like the
> > > OpenSSL, BSD, and GP
David Schwartz wrote:
To the extent that there is no affirmative act of agreement to the EULA,
Microsoft will have a hard time enforcing it. I have seen laptops that, on
first customer boot, require you to accept a Microsoft EULA.
I think Microsoft would have hard time enforcing
> > These are EULAs. I'm talking about pure copyright licenses like the
> > OpenSSL, BSD, and GPL licenses. EULAs are agreements, you must actually
> > agree to them to use the work and this is actually enforced in some
> > manner.
> Incorrect, see the following (I found on a quick scan):
>
> htt
- Original Message -
From: "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: RE: license question
> > You can start out with an OEM license, load that on another
> > piece of hardware, then get the holder to s
The other alternative is that you're not very good at reading it. :)
/r$
--
SOA Appliances
Application Integration Middleware
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Salz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: license question
> > There are many funny licensing clauses that appear nonsensical to the
> > layman but are perfectly logical. Th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 5:28 PM
> To: openssl-users@openssl.org
> Subject: Re: license question
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
&g
> There are many funny licensing clauses that appear nonsensical to the
> layman but are perfectly logical. The SSLeay and OpenSSL license is
> an extremely sloppy and poorly defined document because the people
> who wrote it were under the misguided assumption that good legal
> documentation is s
- Original Message -
From: "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 5:22 AM
Subject: RE: license question
>
> > > I wholeheartedly disagree. You cannot violate the OpenSSL
> > > license by using
> > > Ope
> > I wholeheartedly disagree. You cannot violate the OpenSSL
> > license by using
> > OpenSSL.
> >
> > The end user is not creating a derivative work because he is
> > not creating a
> > work at all. For copyright purposes, you only create a work when you add
> > creative input. Compiling and lin
- Original Message -
From: "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: license question
>
> > What is actually going on when the end-user runs OpenSSL and it
> > dynamically links in your restricted li
Ryan Shon wrote:
>
> I work for nFocal, a company in
> Rochester, New York. We want to develop a variant of OpenSSL
> in which we optimize the cryptography library to run on
> a particular DSP. The other components of OpenSSL would remain
> unchanged except where needed to utilize our custom lib
> What is actually going on when the end-user runs OpenSSL and it
> dynamically links in your restricted library, or the end user compiles
> the unrestricted OpenSSL into your restricted library, is that they
> are committing a license violation of the OpenSSL license when
> they start using the r
Hi Richard,
There's a lot of confustion over the OpenSSL license but in actually
it's quite a simple license.
Answers to your questions in-line:
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Shon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:06 AM
Sub
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:47:12 +0200, Richard
Koenning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Richard.Koenning> Ryan Shon wrote:
Richard.Koenning>
Richard.Koenning> > My boss hopes to sell this OpenSSL variant as a
Richard.Koenning> > product. Because of this, he would not want
Ryan Shon wrote:
My boss hopes to sell this OpenSSL variant as a product. Because
of this, he would not want customers who buy this product to be
free to redistribute it on their own. If we were only to modify
existing OpenSSL, then I assume our entire product would be subject
to free redistri
Richard Koenning wrote:
Ryan Shon wrote:
In particular, we are unclear as to what redistribution rights
the OpenSSL license would grant to customers who purchase
our OpenSSL variant. Would they be allowed to redistribute
our optimized library?
The license enumerates the conditions which have
Ryan Shon wrote:
In particular, we are unclear as to what redistribution rights
the OpenSSL license would grant to customers who purchase
our OpenSSL variant. Would they be allowed to redistribute
our optimized library?
The license enumerates the conditions which have to be met for redistribu
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question regarding the combination of phrases 3 and 4 of the
> OpenSSL license:
>
> > * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
> > *software must display the following acknowledgment:
> > *"This p
That part of the license doesn't actually add anything that wasn't
already there under standard copyright terms. That part of the license
is from the days when the codebase was SSLeay, the product of Eric and
Tim. Years ago. AT the time, it was not uncommon for someone to "rip
off" open source
22 matches
Mail list logo
