On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 07:19:19PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > Well, it seems that OpenSSL's major crime here is that is isn't under the > One True License.
Crime? You're the only one suggesting crime. > So, yes, by your definition, there is only one way to do it, and > OpenSSL isn't doing it that way. Which sounds easier: rewriting open ssl, or rewriting all GPLed programs which use sockets to communicate with other systems? OpenSSL is doing something approximately in that direction, but I don't see that it solves all the problems. > Would your proposed rewrite add any functionality or at least do > things differently? Differently from what? From the current implementation suitable for those applications? Non-GPL authors are perfectly free to reimplement GPLed works, if they don't like the GPL license. Why shouldn't GPL authors be free to reimplement non-GPL works if they don't like the non-GPL license? > Would it even have more difference than the legal minimum to make it a > separate work? If it's an independent rewrite, perhaps to a different underlying api, then it would pretty much have to be an independent work. > Would EAY recognize it as a different way to do it? Copyright isn't about functionality. It's about literal copying. > This just sounds like an Orwellian redefinition of the BSDL, not a > different way to do things. I suppose you could describe the openssl license as an orwellian redefinition... [To address the comment I think you were trying to express, but did not: I don't see how you could describe someone else's independent authoring of code as orwellian redefinition of the BSDL, unless they actually use a variant of the BSD license.] -- Raul
