On Apr 23, 2004, at 14:03, Sam Hartman wrote: [btw: I'm subscribed, no need to cc me on -legal messages]
Anthony> No, the GPL says you (the distributor) may place no
Anthony> additional restrictions above the GPL.
No, quoting clause 2 B of the GPL:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
At least for modified works, people are granted only the rights under
the GPL.
Yes, that's true, by default. However, as the author a derived work, you are free to give people additional liberties with your portion of the work.
However, if you modified the work, you were not obligated to pass along the OpenSSL exception.
I agree with you there. On -legal, we prefer the OpenSSL exception to explicitly say that, but it's probably true even if it doesn't.
It's not actually clear you even had the necessary rights to do so.
The copyright holder on the original work has already granted that exception to his parts of the derived work. You can grant it on your parts of the derived work. The FSF seems to agree:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs>