Hi, chiming in: On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 23:19 +0100, Stefan de Konink wrote: > I read them; and it seems not even OpenSSH is writing every startup: > "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project > for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)"
The advertising clause in the original BSD license is probably the most obnoxious thing ever written into a software license. The advertising clause is just that, an advertising clause. If you set up a business around Cherokee that sold boxed / pre-compiled versions of Cherokee that were linked with OpenSSL ... then advertised your product in a magazine, the advertising clause would apply to you. It does not mean that you must advertise OpenSSL in Cherokee start up. This clause imposes additional restrictions beyond the GPL, hence its incompatibility. > But if I understand it right, Debian is *now* not shipping Cherokee > because of this non-sence? So why is Debian angry in the first place? I > guess, like ffmpeg, Debian could also have disabled crypto. Now that > would have given an interesting situation. The Debian free software guidelines are very specific. This problem is easily fixable. The original BSD license conflicts with the GPL, so Debian can not distribute binary copies of Cherokee while obeying Cherokee's license. This has been raised on debian-legal many times. I thought OpenSSL had dropped that obnoxious clause or I would have raised this issue when the proposal to drop TLS was raised. > Please comment at my first issue. I don't see OpenSSH doing this, it is > included in Debian, what makes *that* it more legal than Cherokee? OpenSSH is under the X11 license (aka modified BSD) which allows people to place additional restrictions on downstream recipients. Therefore, the two do not conflict. The GPL says "no additional restrictions", yet the terms of OpenSSL's license place additional restrictions. So, Debian would be (technically) violating the GPL2 by distributing Cherokee. It comes down to, while the advertising clause is obnoxious, the GPL is technically the more restrictive license, hence it must prevail. It can not prevail due to the advertising clause in the original BSD license. This is why its so much better to release any kind of library under the X11 or LGPL .. its so much less headache. Cheers, --Tim _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
