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

Re: Courier package: GPL vs OpenSSL license



On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 08:54:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What Steve said.
> 
> I don't understand how the author of Courier can both:
> 
> 1) have no problem with people linking his software against OpenSSL;
> 2) be unwilling to explicitly state a license exception.
> 
> A clear communication of the former logically implies the latter.

Hmm, of course I meant:

A clear communication of the former logically *precludes* the latter.

License terms don't *have* to be in legalese.  They just usually are
because:

* Licensing is a legal issue, and legal terminology, when used well, is
  both idiomatic and precise;
* This provides job security for lawyers.

There is a problem with the author telling you "I have no problem with
this" and "I'm not going to admit that I have no problem with this"
simultaneously, though.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    The basic test of freedom is
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    perhaps less in what we are free to
branden@debian.org                 |    do than in what we are free not to
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    do.                  -- Eric Hoffer

Attachment: pgpEn4LJcVn7C.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: