On 06/27/2012 09:00 AM, Guy Hulbert wrote: > It depends what "derived from this software" means. The only protection > "OpenSSL" has, in itself, would be as a trademark. I don't think this is the case, but i could be wrong. Trademark would be used to keep someone from marketing and unrelated product as "OpenSSL". In this case, it's simply the copyright license (not a trademark) which grants the toolkit's re-use, modification, and redistribution rights only under the constraint that: * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "OpenSSL" * nor may "OpenSSL" appear in their names without prior written * permission of the OpenSSL Project. This seems like a silly and annoying clause to me, but it's in the license, and i think we should try to respect the authors' expressed wishes. Given that the perl modules in question clearly contain "OpenSSL" in their names, this appears to only be satisfied under one of the following conditions: 0) a perl module is not a "product" 1) these perl modules are not "derived from" OpenSSL 2) the OpenSSL Project has given these modules explicit permission 3) this clause is considered unenforceable and/or somehow illegitimate Alternately, we could choose to not accept the copyright license, by not redistributing or using OpenSSL for these packages (though i don't know technically how we would accomplish this). I can't summon enough cognitive dissonance to argue for conditions 0 or 1, and i have no idea how to raise a consensus on 3, so i suspect the simplest way forward would be (2): for the perl modules in question to get written permission from the OpenSSL project for their names. Maybe they've already done so -- i haven't checked! Perhaps the debian uploaders could verify with upstream? I really don't think this is a trademark issue. Regards, --dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature