Re: A Pragmatic Approach to OpenSSL/Mutt License Incompatibility [Was: Re: orphaning fetchmail]
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 10:30:15AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > If you want to run a server with SSL, you can always fork() and then exec()
> > stunnel in the child to relay SSL connections in plaintext to the parent via
> > a listening port on the loopback adaptor.
> RMS wouldn't like this. It obvious avoiding the GPL's restrictions
> which is in any sense (but legal maybe) a breaking the GPL.
You're asserting that programs that talk via the loopback adaptor (or is it
TCP/IP in general) must have compatible licenses. That's just not true.
Debian uses stunnel and sslwrap to wrap all sorts of services in this manner
without any regard to the licenses of either package. And with good reason
too. Licenses don't matter when the programs are used together - only when
they're combined to form a derived work which is then distributed.