Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:26 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Looking for an HTTPS client for NT C/C++
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> I'm a bit afraid that FSF (i.e. rms) has already STRONGLY stated that the
> GPL is and would remain incompatible with ANY other open source license,
> except the GPL :-);
>
> The only solution, wrt GPL, is to structure your application so that it CAN
> be used without openSSL; THEN releasing your code under the GPL will not
> contaminate openSSL with the GPL.
Surely that doesn't have to be the case - simply packaging it without
OpenSSL will do, won't it?
> This is another example of the "better is the ennemy of good" (I don't know
> if you say that in English; it's a well-known French saying: "Le mieux est
> l'ennemi du bien"). GPL by wanting to force people to stay in the open
> source world is in fact restricting people from living in it.
>
> My own NSH opinion is that you probably coudl release your code under the
> openSSL, or BSD, license; if you want to , you may then add a clause saying
> that people distributing your code should provide the source code used to
> create the executable code, with the right to redistribute it, as long as it
> can be rebuilt against the standard openSSL code, or distribute th echange
> they've made to openSSL to allow building this application.
>
> However IANAL and frankly I would personally NOT go in this direction and
> would release my code under the openSSL license :-)
Quite.
> Just my .02$
>
> Bernard
>
> PS: Although always attracting people, I'm not sure this GPL-compatibility
> issue should be discussed at length once more. Perhaps a entry in a FAQ
> could just summarize the issue (with mention of the definitive and
> authoritative optinion of RMS) with indication to people willing to release
> their work under an open-source license to try to avoid th eGPL wich is
> marginaly NOT open-source.
RMS's opinion is not definitive - the opinion of a court will be, should
it ever come to that. Until then its all just opinion.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
