Stewart Stremler wrote:
> begin quoting John H. Robinson, IV as of Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 01:35:17PM
> -0700:
> [snip]
> > the ``people'' I am talking about were other projects. If OpenSSL was
> > able to relices under a 3-clause BSD, there would be little need for
^ I think I missed a few letters in relicense.
> > GNUtls.
>
> Is the expected user-base large enough to support that?
I think the userbase of GNUtls is larger than that of the Hurd :)
> > I doubt any code from OpenSSL is finding its way into GNUtls for the
> > simple reason is that it all has the 4-clause taint to it. Of course, I
> > do not know for certain as I am on neither team.
>
> No taint but the GPL taint allowed, eh?
You are talking about the FSF here. The GPL is not so much a ``taint''
as it is the desired goal. As was pointed out in another thread: The
idea is to have a large, compatible, debugged codebase readyy to use.
The FSF uses the GPL (and GPL compatible, such as the LGPL) as a means
to that end.
> So the only reason to switch away from OpenSSL would be for the license?
Possibly.
> I think I'll give that one a few years to mature, too.
I tend to agree with that, myself.
-john
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
