Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > > > >Not true. OpenSSL is *very* hurt by this as their code cannot be used in > >any GPL application, without a special licensing. GNUtls does not suffer > >from this, but it is not as featureful as OpenSSL yet. > > Oops. I meant *openssh*, mea culpa. > > What license is OpenSSL under? I thought it was Apache license? I > don't recall the Apache license being GPL incompatible, but I am willing > to be corrected.
OpenSSL is distributed under a BSD style license, complete with advertising clause. > > > I personally tend toward BSD licenses because GPL licenses kinda > > > suck when abandoned code is involved. > > > >Howso? I can see problems where you want to *change* the license, or if > >you want to appropriate the code in your own, prorietary (read: non open > >and free) project. > > > >Short of those two situations, what problems have you experienced? > > Computational geometry subsystems are a good example. There are quite a > few computational geometry subsystems available--all under various > licenses which restrict redistrbution. So was this computational geometry library distributed under the GPL? By the rest of the things you wrote, it looks like the answer was no. Thus, it is not part of the problem spec. Have you had any problems with code released under the *GPL* other than the two mentioned above? -john -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
