Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And it's not always even that simple: for example, the freeradius
> > project's postgresql plugin links against the postgresql client library
> > (naturally). Postgresql may or may not link against OpenSSL. If it does,
> > then the freeradius-postgresql plugin is breaking the GPL's rules, but how
> > the postgresql client library was compiled isn't neccessarily under
> > freeradius's control.
> Maybe the problem is the GPL rules.
I agree 100% and no software I'm developing is licensed under the
GPL. But there is a lot of useful software out there that helps a lot of
people that *is* developed under the GPL, and OpenSSL has become a universal
open source component that people use to make their applications more
secure.
I'm not saying that the advertising clause is at fault, or the GPL
is at fault. Honestly, I think aspects of them both are at fault. However, I
think that removing this clause from the license of this one product,
OpenSSL, will increase the productivity of the development world in a lot
less time than it would take to change the license of every single GPL app
out there.
And as a result, OpenSSL will be used by even more pieces of
software and OpenSSL will benefit from the added attention from hard-working
open source developers. I see it as a win-win situation.
Cheers,
Tyler
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
