>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Schwartz >Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 7:33 AM >To: openssl-users@openssl.org >Subject: RE: Licenses... > > > I still find this argument incomprehensible. Are you >suggesting that the >sole purpose the FreeBSD people develop software is to create this >wonderful, powerful "FreeBSD" project? And that anything that doesn't >benefit the project with the name "FreeBSD" somehow doesn't matter? >
It would have been better if UCB had simply told GPL "sorry, we aren't going to revoke our advert clause" and left it at that. Then a lot of work in changing documentation and source files and such in the various BSD distributions would have not had to have been done. > Why is the fact that FreeBSD software is now helping >more people in more >different ways not a good? The more people that it's helping did not need the advert clause removed to make use of the BSD software. GPL software would help a lot more people if the GPL was modifed, if your consistent you would be also advocating this too. I don't see that you are. Maybe you should reconsider your real motives here. > Why do you see the open source community as >warring factions so that a benefit for everyone overall doesn't >count as a >benefit to FreeBSD? > I don't understand what your talking about here. Perhaps you should explain this statement better? What is it exactly that you think that I think? >> Of course, there was a lot more to the story than this, but >essentially >> boiled down, this is what it was. > > Again, I think that's a seriously warped view I don't think you have any understanding of the point I made. >that >ignores the fact that >most people who write free open-source software count it as a plus when >their software benefits more people and improves the quality of more >software, whether or not their project's name is on the door. > This is really irrelevant to the issue. >> > What is your metric by which success is measured? It's >> >obviously not how >> >many people use the software and how useful they find it to be. >> > >> > If GPL people "strip mine" OpenSSL and take the parts >> >they consider good >> >and leave the parts they consider bad and put together a >better and more >> >standards-compliant ssl and cryptography library because of it, >> >why is that >> >not a good thing that should be given weight in the >consideration of the >> >benefits of making the license more GPL-compatible? > >> I never said it wasn't. > > Then why is "FreeBSD did their end, GPL didn't do it's end" even >meaningful? > It was not UCB or the various BSD distributions (of which FreeBSD is the major one) who made the pitch to get rid of the advert clause. They didn't initiate this. The GPL camp was who initiated the getting rid of the advert clause with the reason given that it would benefit BSD. Since the advert clause was removed it has not helped BSD one iota, so the upshot is that the GPL camp was basically lying. Granted it may not have harmed BSD either to have the advert clause removed, but it certainly was an insult to the BSD contributors and a hipocritical thing for the GPL people to agitate for. You seem to be having difficulty with the simple principle that if you want to use something that is given to you, you don't criticize the giver and demand that the thing be given to you in a certain side, shape, color, or whatever, or it isn't acceptable. It's like the family member that you give a Christmas present to and they throw it back at you and say "you didn't give it to me in a red box with candy wrapping paper, go back and rewrap it" >> But, that's not OpenSSL's problem. The GPL >> people can simply apply the OpenSSL license to whatever product they >> create, if they want to strip mine OpenSSL. This isn't a problem if >> they are writing fresh code. > >> It is only a problem (in the GPL's mind) when they want to intermix >> existing GPL code that is already licensed under GPL with OpenSSL >> code. But what your missing is that virtually all existing GPL code >> is copyrighted by the developers that wrote it. Those people can >> simply release it under OpenSSL. Don't you understand this about >> GPL yet? > > That's just impossible. Linux, for example, has >thousands of contributors. >It is utterly impossible to get them all to agree to a new license. > This is a rediculous argument. Linux is a huge distribution of many many many programs. We are only talking about a single project that may want to link into OpenSSL. And for that matter, OpenSSL itself has many contributors. Why isn't it "utterly impossible" to get all those contributors to sign off on the proposed license change for OpenSSL in that case? >> This is how MySQL works. The copyright to MySQL is held by >> the mysq company. The commercial version of mysql (if you buy >> it that is) comes lacking a GPL license. It's the same source >> as the GPL version but the copyright holder has chosen to release >> mysql as a GPL-licensed version and as a commercial-licensed >> version, which is perfectly permitted under copyright law. >> >> The FSF's answer when this loophole is pointed out is "well >> everyone writing GPL should reassign their copyrights to the FSF" >> That is not a bad idea - except virtually nobody does it. >> >> If a developer who has a big GPL-licensed project wants to intermix >> OpenSSL then all he needs to do is release 2 versions of his product - >> one under the GPL which does not have OpenSSL linked in, and >> a second under the OpenSSL license that does have OpenSSL linked >> in. (or under a different BSD-style license, etc.) > > How does he obtain the right to do that from the >thousands of contributors? That is easy and it is already covered in the GPL. The relevant section is here: "... If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally...." You see, all those "thousands of contributors" when they put their stuff under the GPL they accepted the terms dictated by the FSF for the GPL. One of these terms is that since the GPL is copyrighted by the FSF, the FSF and no one else can modfy the GPL, and those mods apply to all those thousands of contributors. So all that is necessary for this hypothetical developer to do is write the FSF and get permission to mod the GPL on the project to incorporate the OpenSSL advert clause. Since as you seem to think the GPL is so in favor of open source, then they wouldn't have a problem granting this. >You think it's easy to start over with a project like Linux? Or gcc? > gcc isn't linked into OpenSSL so that's not any valid example. And that is GNU/Linux, not Linux. Just ask the FSF. > >> All of that is why the BSD license is really the "free" >license, the GPL >> license is anything but free. Yet, the FSF would have you believe >> otherwise and is busy brainwashing everyone they can find. > > I agree. > >> The strongest Open Source market is one in which all "free" >licenses are >> used and nobody is discriminated against. FreeBSD and it's ports >> distribution manges to do this very well. OpenSSL's "advert clause" >> license has just as much right to be in the Open Source community as >> the GPL does. If the GPL camp was willing to work with other licenses >> they would figure out how to do it without being a problem for >> themselves, >> just as FreeBSD figured out how to use GPLized software and many other >> more restrictive licenses than that, without contaminating it's own >> philosophy. > > Except the advertising clause stops a lot of people from >using OpenSSL, not >just the GPL crowd. Forced speech is a much higher price to pay than you >might think. > How exactly does giving credit to the people that created a significant part of your product stop you from releasing a product? Lots of people are releasing commercial products that are based in some part on GPLed code, and they have no problem with the more severe restrictions of making their source available, etc. I fail to see how a tiny one-line footnote stating: "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project..." is going to be a burden for anyone putting together marketing materials for a product. Unless of course, they are wanting to lie to their customers and tell their customers that they created the security, and not someone else. >> The problem is I see most of the GPL-pushers acting exactly like the >> Microsquash camp. They have no tolerance for any other licensing >> than their own. > > What does that have to do with the actual issue? Specifically: > > 1) The advertising clause in OpenSSL is not that >important to OpenSSL >itself. > Then if it's so unimportant as you claim, then why is it important to the people wanting it removed? > 2) The advertising clause keeps a lot of people and >projects from using >OpenSSL. > I've asked several times how exactly, and why it's a burden, and nobody can say. This statement your making that the advert clause keeps people from using openssl sounds like one of those made up statements that just gets repeated over and over so many times that people start thinking it's true. > 3) More people and projects using OpenSSL would be a >major good, improving >the quality of software and security overall. > Yes, but this is irrelevant since the advert clause isn't a block to prevent more people from using OpenSSL. > Why is the turf war more important than that? > You, not I, are calling it a turf war, a rather negative, charged phrase. Is it your intention to make your point based solely on negative slams? If so then I will stop calling this an "advertising clause" in the OpenSSL license, and instead call it a more accurate "requirement to give credit" Then you can start arguing that it's a good thing to modify the OpenSSL license so that you don't have to give any credit to the hard work and contributions of the many people that have helped OpenSSL. How does that sound now? Not as nice as arguing against "advertising" This is a philosophical dispute. Some people don't like the OpenSSL license for whatever reason. These people cannot grasp that since they didn't write OpenSSL, they really don't have any say in the terms of the OpenSSL license. So rather than just suck it up and accept it, and deal with it using the mechanisms that are already available to do so (such as writing the FSF) these people feel it necessary to try to push the OpenSSL project into changing it's license. Why is the GPL philosophy of "we don't want to give credit" a more valid philosophy than the OpenSSL philosophy of "give credit"? Ted ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
