On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 12:02:58AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 11:52:31PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > 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.
> You can also say that because GnuTLS is GPL'd more programs will be
> under the GPL if they want to use GnuTLS.
Except they won't use GnuTLS because they can use OpenSSL instead. Even if
OpenSSL were somewhat worse than GnuTLS, but still functional this would
be the case. And OpenSSL isn't worse than GnuTLS -- it's far better. So
this only hurts GnuTLS by ensuring everyone but the GPL fanboys work on
> It's just how you look at
> the situation. But GNU decides it, so I suggest discussing it with
> them instead of discussing on this list.
Actually the authors decide it, and they've already decided, just like the
OpenSSL folks have. We could always start a third project though! Who's
with me??? :)
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org