> On Jul 26, 2005, at 11:44 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
> As an example, I would not be entitled to redistribute wput as long as
> it depended on OpenSSL, because the GPL does not give me the right to
> distribute code (i.e. wput) that depends on other code (i.e. OpenSSL)
> with incompatible restrictions (i.e. advertising requirements).
> One solution is to allow an exception: "This code is licensed under
> the GPL, with the exception that you may link it with OpenSSL." Then
> I'm able to redistribute it without a problem, because you've given me
> permission to do so.
He would need to get permission from every single author of his existing
code in order to change the license.
Also, the suggested wording isn't quite right because the GPL doesn't
prohibit you from linking with OpenSSL. What you would have to do is say
something like, "This code is licensed under the GPL, with the exception
that you may release this work and works derived from subject to the
additional restrictions contained in the OpenSSL license."
The biggest problem is that your new license would itself not be
GPL-compatible. So you couldn't use any other GPL libraries or projects.
Other projects couldn't use your tool if this was a problem for them.
DS
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
