[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, 27 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:

>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.

Because technically OpenSSL didn't change the license.  They still use
the 4 clause BSDL, which is what EAY used, hence my portion of the thread.
Raul and I were arguing over rewriting a GPL version of OpenSSL: I said
that OpenSSL was already DFSG free, so Debian shouldn't get behind a
rewrite, Raul said his proposed rewrite was technical in nature.  The
second message was when he realized it'd have to be a ground up procedure
because of the ssleay license.  The thread died at that point: I was
satisfied that the rewrite wasn't just a BSDL purge and Raul I assume
either went off to rewrite or found the task to be not worth the effort.

ISTR that there was a message that made a better cite of the ssleay
license, but I guess it didn't make the archives or was in an offlist

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


You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!

Reply to: