In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 16 May 2006 10:17:35 -0500, Matt England <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
mengland> At 5/16/2006 09:55 AM, Bob Beck wrote: mengland> > More importantely, as the ssleay license is more mengland> >free (less restrictive) than the gpl it allows for mengland> >OpenSSL's inclusion into things that can not use the GPL, mengland> >due to it's restrictions. mengland> mengland> I agree that the ssleay license is more free (less restrictive). mengland> mengland> I want to be clear: we seek only an *additional* license, not a mengland> replacement license. Whatever we choose to do, we're stuck with the SSLeay license. That can't legally be changed as things stand right now. And because it's just as incompatible with the GPL as the OpenSSL license, we can't license OpenSSL under the GPL even if we wanted to. The only way for a program licensed under the GPL to be linked with OpenSSL without stiring a stink anywhere is with that additional clause that was mentioned earlier (that wget uses among others). Cheers, Richard ----- Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://richard.levitte.org/ "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C.S. Lewis ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
