On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 02:56:01AM -0700, John Galt 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.
I don't think using a similar license counts as using the same
license. And I still think that that clause very clear prohibts
public distribution of any derived work of that software not under
that license, which very clearly rules out proprietary derivatives.
And all becuase the guy didn't like the GPL.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
Attachment:
pgp0DRgPkc4oA.pgp
Description: PGP signature