Ben Laurie wrote:
> I'm not convinced by your argument that accepting the advertising
> restriction restricts your ability to distribute the code, since you are
> always free to accept the advertising restriction, and hence can always
> distribute the code. But this is not relevant to the question, anyway.
That doesn't make sense. That's like saying that if you have to pay me
$1,000 to use your car, that doesn't restrict your ability to use your car,
since you can always pay me the money and hence you can always use it.
Obviously, any restriction (by definition) restricts your ability by
imposing conditions upon you that wouldn't be there without the restriction.
> Finally, I should point out, once more, that we (that is, the OpenSSL
> team) _cannot_ change Eric's licence, so we can _do nothing_ about
> advertising clauses. Hence, it would make sense for the community to
> find ways to live with this instead of attempting to apply pressure on
> us to fix the unfixable.
I appreciate that. I certainly am not trying to put any pressure on
anybody.
If, however, others do wish to apply pressure, they should apply the
pressure to the entity with the ability to remedy this situation. That would
be the FSF, who could release a new version of the GPL that was compatible
with the OpenSSL library's license. The new license would immediately take
affect on all past and future GPLed code and permit the incorporation of
OpenSSL into all past and future GPLed projects.
DS
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
