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]