>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kyle Hamilton >Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:51 PM >To: [email protected] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Licenses... > > >On 4/12/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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. > >I have two thoughts on this. > >1) The GPL is a well-understood license, and its terms are >well-understood. Its philosophy is (though fairly extremist) >generally good at heart.
only if copyright is given to FSF, as discussed in the FSF writings that are used as a basis for the GPL. If copyright is held by the developer and particularly if separate releases of GPLed and non-GPLed code are made by the developer, it is a perversion of the GPL philosophy. It has also NOT been tested in a court. The BSD license has, BTW. >The "obnoxious BSD advertising clause" in >BSD was removed by Berkeley when they realized that they had nothing >to gain from its being there. Not true. Removal was instigated by pressure from the GPL camp as I've discussed, but the decision to do it that the University made (which was made at a fairly low-level, by the way) was made for several political reasons. First and most importantly, and this is rather shameful to discuss, UCB really has very little pride in it's BSD heritage these days. Just about all computers on the campus are Windows boxes and there's more interest in Linux on campus and among the staff than in BSD. You would think that UCB would be like the center of BSD research, but last I checked they don't even teach a class on it anymore. Even the SWW (Software Warehouse) that the EECS runs, it lists Solaris and Linux binaries, no FreeBSD or BSD. There is also no BSD support, read it and weep: https://iris.eecs.berkeley.edu/10-services/09-unix.html So the upshot is they simply didn't give a crap about it. Last, it was removed because they realized a large number of companies, including Microsoft, were using BSD code and not crediting Berkeley for it as required in the license - and UCB knew that unless they were to commence civil suits against those companies (ie: put money into enforcing it) that it made no difference if the clause was there or not. Ted ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
