On Monday 13 November 2000 23:54, Ulf Moeller wrote:
> > other people must be in this situation too, probably unknowingly. We
> > have to resolve this, and if what we are doing is not allowed, it should
> > probably be documented in the OpenSSL documentation.
>
> As far as the OpenSSL team is concerned, everybody is free to use OpenSSL.
This is what I understood, and of course what we all intend (KDE included).
> Unfortunately, the FSF is telling GPL software developers that they are not
> allowed to, and as I indicated we can't do anything about it. (The GPL
> is the only license with that problem that I know of. You can use OpenSSL
> even with the most evil commercially licensed SDK and of course with any
And this is my problem. I personally don't care... I have the same
philosophy as you. Anyone who is licenced to use KDE may freely use KSSL
with it. However I am getting complaints because of this licencing problem.
My inclination right now is to just ignore all of this. I did make the
effort to ensure that the recognition for OpenSSL was included in the code
and documentation for KDE, as requested in the licence, and I have no problem
with this at all.
> other free software out there. Based on these facts I have come to the
> conclusion that that provision of the GPL is obnoxious - but thanks for
> caring about my reputation, Michael.)
I definitely agree.
> > [While you are reading this, keep in mind that this is KDE. We have to
> > allow redistribution in binary forms, on cds sold by vendors, and more.
> > Some platforms will be compiling and linking with a closed source
> > commercial compiler, linker and library too (ie HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris).
> > This is not negotiable.]
>
> OpenSSL is part of all major free operating systems and one or two
> commercial ones. You can use it on those systems, thanks to a special
> clause in the GPL. If you want to use it on any other systems, you'll have
> to change your license. Sorry.
I guess that's up to the packagers for those platforms. I'll wait for
them to come to me and I'll direct them to this problem. Perhaps they will
have a solution for each particular case. I don't know if this helps the
latest person who contacted me though. He is writing an application which
needs to use KDE, including libraries which use OpenSSL. Now the library
does not require OpenSSL, but much of the library becomes NOOP if OpenSSL is
not linked in. I don't know if this changes anything or not. However if
developers cannot develop software because of the licencing issues, then we
have a serious problem.
I definitely respect the OpenSSL team's choice of licence. The issues
becomes: is it perhaps best to make a change if it will make things easier
for a large number of developers. (as much as I hate to give in) *shrug*
> > >�May I dynamically link my GPL-ed application to OpenSSL?
> >
> > You cannot do this without a special exception, lest redistribution of
> > your software will not be legal.
>
> Their own GnuPG is loading proprietary patent-protected modules at runtime.
> Is that hypocrisy or what?
Definitely.
Thanks for your help, Ulf!
--
George Staikos
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
