At 5/16/2006 09:55 AM, Bob Beck wrote:
More importantely, as the ssleay license is more free (less
restrictive) than the gpl it allows for OpenSSL's inclusion into things
that can not use the GPL, due to it's restrictions.
I agree that the ssleay license is more free (less
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 16 May 2006 10:17:35 -0500, Matt England
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
mengland At 5/16/2006 09:55 AM, Bob Beck wrote:
mengland More importantely, as the ssleay license is more
mengland free (less restrictive) than the gpl it allows for
mengland OpenSSL's
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 10:56, Brad House wrote:
It's the GPL license that's broken, not OpenSSL. I believe the main
reason that you cannot link with OpenSSL's license is because of the
BSD with credit/advertising clause.
the advertising clause was dropped from the BSD license a long time ago
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 16 May 2006 12:27:27 -0400, Richard Salz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rsalz As for BSD/advertising dicussions, the SSLeay license is
rsalz characterized as BSD with copyright. It's not pure BSD, and
rsalz so whether or not the current BSD license has an
At 5/16/2006 04:03 PM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Matt England wrote:
So to reiterate the question that I should have probably clarified in my
original email:
Would OpenSSL have any interest in _adding_ GPL to their license
offerings (along with the existing, ssleay-related license(s)) in a
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
com on Tue, 16 May 2006 12:27:27 -0400, Richard Salz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rsalz As for BSD/advertising dicussions, the SSLeay license is
rsalz characterized as BSD with copyright. It's not pure BSD, and
rsalz so whether or not the current BSD license has
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 16 May 2006 14:31:46 -0700, David
Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
davids
davids In message
davids [EMAIL PROTECTED]
davids com on Tue, 16 May 2006 12:27:27 -0400, Richard Salz
davids [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
davids
davids rsalz As for BSD/advertising
Is it perhaps time for the project maintainers to author the definative
Why OpenSSL is not GPL Licensed, and why it will not be (not argumentative
diatriabe, just simply stating the facts)? Post this on openssl.org and
offer inquiring minds a pointer?
This is getting silly when 30 days can't
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Howard Chu
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:58 PM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Cc: Bob Beck
Subject: Re: Any possibility of GPL-based license in the future?
Sometimes the fact that the main source moves onward
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeffrey Altman
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:03 PM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Cc: Bob Beck; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Any possibility of GPL-based license in the future?
It is impossible for OpenSSL
10 matches
Mail list logo
