On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:59:18AM +0200, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote: > - the requirments are NOT for any GPL licened code. (and it's not, it's > just for the orginal BSD licensed code, not for the changes made to it.. > you can distrubite those changes WITHOUT showing the BSD license) > [...] > the OpenSSL license is clearly different, it tries to impose licensing > terms on use of it's code, that are not allowed in the GPL. It sets terms > not just for it's own code, but for other (in this case, GPL licensed) > code that uses it. Which the GPL does not allow.
Ok, you seem to be arguing that the distinction is that clause 3 of the openssl license (the "advertising clause") applies to the GPL code as well, and is therefore in conflict with the GPL, while clause 2 (the standard BSD license reproduction clause for binaries) applies only to the BSD portion of the code and so in *not* in conflict. Is that correct? And if so, I still don't understand what language distinguishes the two cases. Is it the reference to 'features' in the advertising clause? -r _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
