Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What? That doesn't follow at all. Even ignoring that, you're still > wrong. You have no guarantee that upstream hasn't done something that is > assumed to breach the GPL, such as depending on a BSDed library that > happens to link against OpenSSL. If the code had been under the BSD > license, the number of possible conflicts you have to check would have > been smaller and thus easier.
But it's as easy to blame that on the OpenSSL license as on the GPL. I don't think you can look at nonlocal problems as an indication of any given license being non-free; just as a reason not to increase license proliferation. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
