Re: A Pragmatic Approach to OpenSSL/Mutt License Incompatibility [Was: Re: orphaning fetchmail]
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:45:37PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> stunnel might be a better tool for this, since it returns determinate error
> levels when there's a problem. Also, read() and write() calls on the socket
> FD that's talking to stunnel will fail in a manner similer to if a TCP/IP
> connection is lost should stunnel die or get killed.
Ok, ssltunnel looks like it will probably do the right thing. However,
I'm worried about whether its legal to distribute in all countries
outside the U.S.
Reading over the license carefully, it looks like the major issue would
be the old bsd advertising clause, which isn't a restriction in the U.S,
but might cause GPL problems in other countries. The explicit "anti-GPL"
clause is still there, but when I read over it, it's saying that you
can't remove the current license, not that another license can't be used.
Also, I wonder about the copyright statement in
/usr/share/doc/ssltunnel/copyright: SSL is distributed under the GPL,
but binaries are distributed under the SSLeay license?
--
Raul
Reply to: