Re: [Steve Lidie <Stephen.O.Lidie@Lehigh.EDU>] Re: xodometer licensing
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>[reply to the real post later]
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>> >> Let's go to another case: You do the same for OpenSSL. You've violated
>> >> the OpenSSL license, since it expressly forbids linking with GPL code.
>> >> Yet OpenSSL is DFSG free. Your example fails to make any difference
>> >> because you've stretched it so far.
>> >Well, I don't see where in the OpenSSL license you see that. But it
>> >is GPL-incompatible, so the GPL forbids linking with the OpenSSL
>> See the thread started with
>> More precisely:
>> BTW, minor correction. I lumped the ssleay license in with the openssl
>> license in my mind. You're violating the licensing of openssl, but not
>> the openssl license, if that makes any sense.
>That's a very strange clause to include. That license is
>*significantly* more restrictive than the GPL, since it's terms can
>never be changed, except by the copyright holder. In fact, it would
>seem that that clause prohibits linking (at least statically) with any
>code not under that license (since that would neccessarily change the
>license of the derived work). Unless it only applies to verbatim
>copies, which would be weird (and totally pointless). But under the
>obvious reading of it, it clearly prohibits any sort of proprietary
>software based on the code.
>Weird. Why do we consider it legal to link OpenSSL-licensed code with
>ssleay-licensed code? It didn't seem to be mentioned on that thread.
Because technically OpenSSL didn't change the license. They still use
the 4 clause BSDL, which is what EAY used, hence my portion of the thread.
Raul and I were arguing over rewriting a GPL version of OpenSSL: I said
that OpenSSL was already DFSG free, so Debian shouldn't get behind a
rewrite, Raul said his proposed rewrite was technical in nature. The
second message was when he realized it'd have to be a ground up procedure
because of the ssleay license. The thread died at that point: I was
satisfied that the rewrite wasn't just a BSDL purge and Raul I assume
either went off to rewrite or found the task to be not worth the effort.
ISTR that there was a message that made a better cite of the ssleay
license, but I guess it didn't make the archives or was in an offlist
> sam th
> GnuPG Key:
You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? email@example.com, that's who!