On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 08:04:32PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:54:49AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > There is no way to change the OpenSSL license. The project doesn't use > > copyright assignment and the number of contributors is far too large to be > > able to track them all down and get their permission. > I do not believe that either of these statements is categorically true. > If I recall correctly, similar things were said about freeing Moria and > Angband, then it turned out that it would have been trivial to contact > Robert Koeneke if anyone had actually bothered to try. > The OpenSSL license terms are terrible. That, the awful build system, > the awful API, and some of the crypto are reasons that we should not use > OpenSSL at all for anything. But instead we run around harming free > software by making GPL exceptions and pretending that OpenSSL is good > and tolerable. Which crypto library has a non-awful API? > As an intellectual property abolitionist, I'll refrain from weighing in > on the ethical issues of adhering to stupid license terms. I think you've managed to invert my point here, actually, which was that when someone licenses their work under *the GPL*, we should respect their wishes - even though it would make our lives a lot easier to be able to ship binaries linked against OpenSSL. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature