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

Re: [Steve Lidie <Stephen.O.Lidie@Lehigh.EDU>] Re: xodometer licensing



On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote:

[reply to the real post later]

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >> Let's go to another case: You do the same for OpenSSL.  You've violated
> >> the OpenSSL license, since it expressly forbids linking with GPL code.
> >> Yet OpenSSL is DFSG free.  Your example fails to make any difference
> >> because you've stretched it so far.
> >
> >Well, I don't see where in the OpenSSL license you see that.  But it
> >is GPL-incompatible, so the GPL forbids linking with the OpenSSL
> >code.
> 
> See the thread started with
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00052.html
> 
> More precisely:
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00069.html
> 
> BTW, minor correction.  I lumped the ssleay license in with the openssl
> license in my mind.  You're violating the licensing of openssl, but not
> the openssl license, if that makes any sense.
> 
           
That's a very strange clause to include.  That license is
*significantly* more restrictive than the GPL, since it's terms can
never be changed, except by the copyright holder. In fact, it would
seem that that clause prohibits linking (at least statically) with any
code not under that license (since that would neccessarily change the
license of the derived work).  Unless it only applies to verbatim
copies, which would be weird (and totally pointless).  But under the
obvious reading of it, it clearly prohibits any sort of proprietary
software based on the code.  

Weird.  Why do we consider it legal to link OpenSSL-licensed code with
ssleay-licensed code?  It didn't seem to be mentioned on that thread.  

	sam th		     
	sam@uchicago.edu
	http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
	GnuPG Key:  
	http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key

Attachment: pgpKQBgnVhpmZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: