Re: [Steve Lidie <Stephen.O.Lidie@Lehigh.EDU>] Re: xodometer licensing
update....
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, I wrote:
>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
>tangent.
Found it:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00064.html
That thread went on almost as long as this one...
>> 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: