* Joel Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org> [020508 23:06]:
> Only if one things the GPL is the best possible license. Since Debian has
> a policy of considering all DFSG-free licenses to be equal (in that they
> are free, and there is no 'freeness' comparison which can be agreed upon
> by the project as a whole), it remains an annoying conflict between the
> fact that the library is GPLed instead of LGPLed, and the advertising
> requirement of the OpenSSL license.
I think you have to seperate between what you give rights to exist
and what you prefer.
I'm not saying OpenSSL should be banned or removed from the
distribution, but that its licence hurts the development of
And an SSL-implementation is an really important thing. Having OpenSSL
polluting the large pool of GPLed software, making it necassary to
add extra permissions for the code, thus making it more problemeatic
to tranfer code between programs, is really an ugly thing.
One might also have different opinions of what free means. Some prefer
something liberal BSD-like, others an more secure GPL-way. I tolarate
advertising clauses and clauses about patents as free, though I see
them as abuse of copyright law.
What I wanted to state was, that I see the fakt of the replacement
beeing GPLed is counterproductive, as the main reason to put a library
under GPL in my eyes - the encouragement of more GNU-usefull
licences i.e. licences that permit at least as much as the GPL -
is in my eyes not applicable to an ssl-implementation, because
introducing an GPL-compatible standard helps this goals more than
protecting the replacement from beeing abused by proprietary programs.
Bernhard R. Link
"(C)2002 Google - Searching 2,073,418,204 web pages and skipping
4,475,243,576 pages under the DMCA"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org