Yay! let's switch to the BSD license! (well, what did you expect from
the FreeBSD guy?)
A few points, however:
1) If you configure the emulator without SSL support, it does not
use any OpenSSL code, and therefore the license conflict
should be a non-issue.
2) The Windows version does not use tn5250.c, but only uses the
lib5250 code. I'd be more than happy to change tn5250-win.c
& friends to a BSD-style license :) Though, I have the same
exception clause in tn5250-win.c, etc as they used in lib5250.
Of course, this means that the Un*X version should still be kept
in a non-binary format until we fix the license problem.
On 5 Feb 2002, Carey Evans wrote:
> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news about laws etc. again, but I've
> realised that, due to the interaction between the advertising clause
> in the OpenSSL license (conditions 3 and 6), and section 6 of the GNU
> GPL, nobody is actually allowed to distribute binaries of tn5250.
>
> This applies to the license on tn5250.c; I'm not sure how it interacts
> with the sort-of-GPL on the source for lib5250, but I think the
> exception just defers to the license on tn5250.c.
>
> The only way out of this, as far as I know, is for the copyright
> holder(s) of the GPL bits of tn5250 to change the license.
> Possibilities are to use a less restrictive license like the LGPL (or
> MIT or BSD license) instead, or to add an exception for OpenSSL like
> some of KDE has for Qt.
>
_______________________________________________
This is the Linux 5250 Development Project (LINUX5250) mailing list
To post a message email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/linux5250
or email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/linux5250.
