> That would, I guess, be UKansas and a few individuals. Including important contributors who are no longer traceable, like Foteos. A long time ago the FSF wanted Lynx to have the copyrights assigned to single organisation. It couldn't be done then, because it was impossible to track down everyone and get agreement.
You would also have to remove GPLed code from other libraries, e.g. is GNU gettext being used for the internationalisation? Once you had permission from all the copyright owners of GPLed code, you wouldn't actually need to remove the GPL; what you would need to do is give an additional permission on all the GPLed code to allow it to be linked with OpenSSL. The conflict that arises is because OpenSSL imposes an additional restriction (an advertising clause). The GPL doesn't allow, for reasons wholly predictable from the policy behind it, additional restrictions, but it allows additional permissions. Incidentally, I suspect an anti-FSF or anti-copyright line from one contributor to this thread. For clarification of what I've written, there is no doubt that distributing an OpenSSL binary for Windows is a copyright infringement. The area where they may (but also might not) be a conflict between letter and spirit is where either an incomplete product is supplied, with the intention that the recipient links with an incompatible library, or a complete product is provided but with such a poor implementation of the library that most reasonable people would be forced to replace it with the incompatible one. Where one usually sees this brinkmanship is when someone wants to make a profit from open source code without contributing back fully. _______________________________________________ Lynx-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev
