On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 01:21:56PM +1300, Carey Evans wrote: > I believe openssl inherits most of its GPL-incompatible clauses from > ssleay. For example, I have an old copy of fcrypt.c, which is part of > Eric Young's libdes, which includes: > > * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software > * must display the following acknowledgement: > * "This product includes cryptographic software written by > * Eric Young ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" > * The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the library > * being used are not cryptographic related :-).
That's a variant on the BSD licensing clause, which is annoying, but not legally valid. > which is the BSD advertising clause that is incompatible with the GPL. > > There's also: > > * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or > * derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be > * copied and put under another distribution licence > * [including the GNU Public Licence.] I didn't notice the explicit "ssleay can't be used with the GPL" -- yeah, this means it would have to be re-implemented from scratch (perhaps grabbing some code from analogous but differently licensed products). What I was noticing was the added distribution terms for OpenSSL. -- Raul