On Monday, 8 February 1999 19:07, Josh MacDonald
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > Hear, hear.
> >
> > As much as the existing configuration system is a pain, please realise
> > that not everyone uses Unix and Perl, and that not everyone likes the
> > restrictions of the GPL.
> >
> > IMHO, the a large part of the success of OpenSSL lies in the fact that
> > is *can* be used in commercial products in lieu of proprietary
solutions.
> >
> > Please don't compromise this.
>
> Can you elaborate, specifically, about how the license of the various
> programs mentioned prevent their use for the present purpose? You
> really must support this claim.
I never stated that the licenses convering autoconf et al prevent it's use
for OpenSSL under the terms that OpenSSL requires - hence I have no "claim"
to support.
My post was intended to support Stephens Henson's statements that the
issues of licensing with respect to the GPL and OpenSSL are not as simple
as they may first appear, and to realise that platforms other than Unix
should continue to be supported with whatever configuration mechanism is
proposed.
As I have not used recent versions of autoconf, I cannot say for certain
whether the license that covers it would affect it's ability to be used in
OpenSSL. But note that the GPL can just as easily apply to a shell script,
perl script or Makefile that is an essential part of OpenSSL - it doesn't
only apply to handcrafted C source code.
Regards,
Craig Southeren
-------------------------------------------
Equivalence Pty Ltd
Home of FireDoor, MibMaster & PhonePatch
For Open Source H.323 - see http://www.openh323.org
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.equival.com.au
Fax: +61 2 4368 1395 Voice: +61 2 4368 2118
-------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
