Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 07:12:01AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> I daresay that I, Aaron, and a number of other regulars here (and on
> license-discuss@opensource.org) are familiar enough with the usual sort
> of copyright law, and how licensing operates as a legal mechanism under
> it, to see that Young's added clause, indeed, simply cements into his
> licence what is already a fundamental concept of copyright law: If you
> don't own it, you simply cannot relicense it, by definition.
[ I'd like to note that I don't stand behind the comments that I
posted as a messager. ]
You know, what I find confusing about this whole discussion is whether
it pertains to an original work or a derived work. I find it quite
obvious that one can't simply relicense _OpenSSL_, as it is. But with
changing the name or some other minor detail to create a derived work,
the BSD license (either revision) allows you to select the license
under which you will distribute that derived work.
When I first read Young's clause, my impression was that it meant to
apply to derived works, so one could not produce a GPL'd varient of
OpenSSL. I do not know if this is truly the case.
Reply to: