On Apr 1, 2005, at 10:02 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The dual-licensing goes back a long time. What would be involved in licensing it solely under the GPL? Obviously the jabberd2 folks did that and it seems conceptually simpler than dual-licensing.
Well, if all the files were dual licensed, then upstream could simply make the changes to the file headers and release under just the GPL, just as anyone receiving the dual licensed version could.
However, there is also a problem with GPL and OpenSSL linking. As I understand it, the common solution to this problem is to add a license exception that specifically allows linking with OpenSSL. However, this would require acceptance from each contributor as I understand it. Without such an exception I'm pretty sure that no one would be able to legally distribute an OpenSSL linked version.
The advertising clause right? Well there are a few things you can do. From easy and not so legal to perfectly legal with a lot of effort.
- not care cause it's unlikely the OpenSSL team cares. Ofcourse, Debian etc. cares..
- not distribute with OpenSSL, dynamically link against it. If OpenSSL is considered "part of the operating system" this is legal, not everyone agrees with that though.
- put in the OpenSSL advertising clause. It's not a crime to credit them. Still GPL puritans will care.
- put a "special exception" for linking against OpenSSL in the license. Just put it there, don't tell anyone ;) Hope you don't upset anyone.
- the above, but the "legal" way. Ask every contributer to the current codebase (wether is was under GPL or under JOSL) for permission to do that.
- Haress the OpenSSL people to drop the advertising clause. (how legal this is depends on your method of haressing)
- Dump OpenSSL in favor of GNU TLS or something else GPL (compatible).
- Drop GPL and go with JOSL only license ;)
_______________________________________________
jdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
