On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote: > >[reply to the real post later] > >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >> >> Let's go to another case: You do the same for OpenSSL. You've violated >> >> the OpenSSL license, since it expressly forbids linking with GPL code. >> >> Yet OpenSSL is DFSG free. Your example fails to make any difference >> >> because you've stretched it so far. >> > >> >Well, I don't see where in the OpenSSL license you see that. But it >> >is GPL-incompatible, so the GPL forbids linking with the OpenSSL >> >code. >> >> See the thread started with >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00052.html >> >> More precisely: >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00069.html >> >> BTW, minor correction. I lumped the ssleay license in with the openssl >> license in my mind. You're violating the licensing of openssl, but not >> the openssl license, if that makes any sense. >> > >That's a very strange clause to include. That license is >*significantly* more restrictive than the GPL, since it's terms can >never be changed, except by the copyright holder. In fact, it would >seem that that clause prohibits linking (at least statically) with any >code not under that license (since that would neccessarily change the >license of the derived work). Unless it only applies to verbatim >copies, which would be weird (and totally pointless). But under the >obvious reading of it, it clearly prohibits any sort of proprietary >software based on the code. > >Weird. Why do we consider it legal to link OpenSSL-licensed code with >ssleay-licensed code? It didn't seem to be mentioned on that thread.
Because technically OpenSSL didn't change the license. They still use the 4 clause BSDL, which is what EAY used, hence my portion of the thread. Raul and I were arguing over rewriting a GPL version of OpenSSL: I said that OpenSSL was already DFSG free, so Debian shouldn't get behind a rewrite, Raul said his proposed rewrite was technical in nature. The second message was when he realized it'd have to be a ground up procedure because of the ssleay license. The thread died at that point: I was satisfied that the rewrite wasn't just a BSDL purge and Raul I assume either went off to rewrite or found the task to be not worth the effort. ISTR that there was a message that made a better cite of the ssleay license, but I guess it didn't make the archives or was in an offlist tangent. > sam th > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ > GnuPG Key: > http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key > -- You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money? Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
