>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard >Levitte - VMS Whacker >Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:43 PM >To: openssl-users@openssl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Licenses... > > I've come into this project with the vision that >OpenSSL should be as available to anyone as possible without >compromising its freedom to exist. If someone wants to embed it into >their software, regardless of who that is, my vision is unthreatened. >However, if someone can't use OpenSSL because of some idiotic thing as >a license clash, I'm getting upset because it doesn't match my vision.
What I still have not seen from the "pro-advertisement-clause-removal" camp is a logical explanation of why someone cannot use OpenSSL because of the so-called "advertising-clause" >every user to tell everyone that they use it[1]. From that point of >view, I see zero harm in removing a clause that seems to generate more >conflict and confusion[2] than good from our license. > And what I see is this: we have a good piece of software - openssl - which has a clause in it's licensing that is no more burdensome than the clauses in the GPL. Hey I have an idea. Why doesen't the OpenSSL community tell the GPL to modify it's license to be compliant to the OpenSSL license? That seems to be a mirror of what the GPL people are demanding. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Ted ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
