Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On 2004-08-13 10:58:58 +0100 Freek Dijkstra
For me, I did not make a distinction between "open source" and "free"
software. All I wanted is contribute whatever I do back to the
There are other differences about how they've worked out too. I
summarise some of the consequences from my point of view at
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/writing/ambigopen.html and you can probably
find the opposite piece pretty easily.
Likely, this is a moral aberration I got by being employed as
Maybe, but there is recently an increasing consideration of
"scientific ethics" and "science and society" topics as we are faced
with public-debate science topics like GM/Frankenstein foods and
theraputic/designer cloning. Perhaps your discovery of this is related
to that in some way, but perhaps not.
On copyright, you do not seem particularly unusual among scientists,
software authors, all authors or the public in general. Many resent
having to deal with these things and I can understand why. I hope you
are finding these discussions helpful.
You are right -- as I understand now, the author who wrote the link
OpenSSL into netatalk was wrong to redistribute that additional code
the community. At least, if the reasoning of the FSF is followed in
I think one can argue easily that many people involved are "wrong" in
some way and it is the combination of them that causes this effect.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast