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

Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs



On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> In summary, the clause:
>  * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or   
>  * derivative of this code cannot be changed.  i.e. this code cannot simply be  
>  * copied and put under another distribution licence
>  * [including the GNU Public Licence.]
> ...is a no-op, as copyright law already implicity provides it. This
> clause does not cause much reason for concern.

I specifically asked RMS about this in private mail before bringing up this
thread: he indicated that this wasn't the case, but didn't have any further
details to back his opinion up.

> Unfortunately, there's more. A few years ago, OpenSSL became
> maintained by Tim Hudson and others. Their contributions are licensed
> under the original BSD license, *with the advertising clause*. 

Like I said, OpenSSL has three obnoxious advertising clauses on its
license. One from Eric Young, one from Tim Hudson (which only applies to
the Windows code), and one from the OpenSSL group. 

Also, Tim Hudson was one of the original authors, along with Eric Young,
back from when it was called ssleay.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpuXDfr8L32t.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: