[Aaron Lehmann kindly posted my private comment to him that Eric A. Young's no-relicensing clause in his OpenSSL code is, as Aaron articulately puts it, "a no-op".]
begin Anthony Towns quotation: > I specifically asked RMS about this in private mail before bringing up > this thread: he indicated that this wasn't the case, but didn't have > any further details to back his opinion up. It is a tribute to Richard's protean importance to free software that there actually _are_ several fields in which this would be a compelling (albeit overly concise) argument. However, copyright law isn't really one of them. I daresay that I, Aaron, and a number of other regulars here (and on [email protected]) are familiar enough with the usual sort of copyright law, and how licensing operates as a legal mechanism under it, to see that Young's added clause, indeed, simply cements into his licence what is already a fundamental concept of copyright law: If you don't own it, you simply cannot relicense it, by definition. It is conceivable that RMS has in mind the possibility that copyright law might vastly change in the future (leaving EAY's clause still operative in its wake), and that some very unusual legal jurisdictions might exist where copyright law has some different basis. Otherwise, it's difficult to imagine what he has in mind -- because, of course, nobody has posted it. > As I said, OpenSSL has three obnoxious advertising clauses on its > license. And they're all basically the same, making it a single issue (either substitively or exactly the infamous original-BSD obnoxious advertising clause; I'd have to re-check) -- which, I would maintain, is the _only_ genuine licensing problem with this codebase, one that is well-understood and, yes, a real headache given the explosion in usage of crypto. -- Cheers, kill -9 them all. Rick Moen Let init sort it out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
