-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Now, I didn't start this thread to argue about licenses. I just wanted
folks to review code, should they be so inclined. So, this is my last
comment. Sorry that someone took umbrage.
Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > I was not aware that OpenSSL had changed to be compatible with GPL.
> > And I cannot find the license statement on the web pages.
>
> The licence has not changed.
>
I've found the license in the source.
It's not compatible with GPL -- indeed, it is antithetical to GPL,
specifically mentioning GPL by name!
> I don't see any concerns here, just a history lesson.
>
Hmmm, since I know you read the thread at the time, I can only
conclude that you are being disingenuous.
It not only has the old BSD 4 clause license, it has additional
clauses....
> And this, as far as I can work out, is really just saying "it isn't the
> licence we want". There is no requirement in GPL for the OpenSSL licence
> (or any other) to not have an advertising requirement, again, as far as
> I can work out - where does it say that?
>
IANAL, but my memory of the argument (without bothering to look it up)
is that GPL doesn't allow additional requirements to be imposed, and
monolithic works apply GPL to the entire work. Your license is
incompatible (and deliberately so). It makes your code useless to the
rest of the project.
So, it isn't the license they want!
> The current beta has MacOS support.
>
Hmmm, have you personally verified this statement? AFAIK, by the
documentation, it won't even run the test apps. It's a start, but it's
not ready.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQCVAwUBOcfvCdm/qMj6R+sxAQH6+QP9H2kvgl88IxIzV3tA61icv0kU7KoNTvYK
+Fd14tt+UoN35HRwaoNvXeYbwsq8gyCtVl3vQYYponsEt+Ij7sdpxwx5zJDS64gp
LRLSLWAnu9N8buZRdFLd0C0uqXEosZRVNN0ZUFpLKCuwrAG8jwi5L+0NVZZM56N7
Cu5dYGuWPjg=
=5/uU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
