Re: orphaning fetchmail
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 07:19:19PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Well, it seems that OpenSSL's major crime here is that is isn't under the
> One True License.
Crime? You're the only one suggesting crime.
> So, yes, by your definition, there is only one way to do it, and
> OpenSSL isn't doing it that way.
Which sounds easier: rewriting open ssl, or rewriting all GPLed programs
which use sockets to communicate with other systems?
OpenSSL is doing something approximately in that direction, but I don't
see that it solves all the problems.
> Would your proposed rewrite add any functionality or at least do
> things differently?
Differently from what? From the current implementation suitable for
Non-GPL authors are perfectly free to reimplement GPLed works, if
they don't like the GPL license. Why shouldn't GPL authors be free to
reimplement non-GPL works if they don't like the non-GPL license?
> Would it even have more difference than the legal minimum to make it a
> separate work?
If it's an independent rewrite, perhaps to a different underlying api,
then it would pretty much have to be an independent work.
> Would EAY recognize it as a different way to do it?
Copyright isn't about functionality. It's about literal copying.
> This just sounds like an Orwellian redefinition of the BSDL, not a
> different way to do things.
I suppose you could describe the openssl license as an orwellian
redefinition... [To address the comment I think you were trying to
express, but did not: I don't see how you could describe someone else's
independent authoring of code as orwellian redefinition of the BSDL,
unless they actually use a variant of the BSD license.]