[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
those applications?

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.]


Reply to: