Re: orphaning fetchmail
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:06:06PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Okay, I'll spell it out. Rewriting BSDL'd stuff with the GPL is one of
> the things that really gets in the BSD community's craw. Basically they
> take it as an "embrace and extend" move by the FSF. It's rather ironic
> coming from me, but can't we all just forget the BSD/GPL bullshit for once
> and just deal with extension of free software, no matter what the
> license? If you want to propose projects to rewrite software, why waste
> the effort by rewriting what's already free when there's LOADS of non-free
> software out there that could use a political rewrite? In fact, I'd say
> that THERE is the worthwhile project: rewrite non-free into DFSG free
> licenses. Debian is committed to extension of DFSG free software, OpenSSL
> is under the BSDL, so it's already DFSG free--no extension is gained by
> rewriting it, so therefore it's outside the scope of the commitment.
I think most people agree that OpenSSL is Free Software.
But it is not GPL compatible. So if you want a derived work based on
some GPLed code (e.g. fetchmail, mutt) and OpenSSL then you cannot
distribute the complete work it has added restrictions not in the GPL.
I believe the clauses that are a problem in this case are:
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
* software must display the following acknowledgment:
* "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
* for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)"
* 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "OpenSSL"
* nor may "OpenSSL" appear in their names without prior written
* permission of the OpenSSL Project.
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* "This product includes cryptographic software written by
* Eric Young (firstname.lastname@example.org)"
* The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the library
* being used are not cryptographic related :-).
* The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
* derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be
* copied and put under another distribution licence
* [including the GNU Public Licence.]
So what we need is not so really a GPLed version but at least a GPL
compatible version. (So a 'modern' BSD licensed library would not be a