> For 30 some-odd years nobody had a problem with the BSD's "advert"
> clause in using it's software. Then the GPL came along and insisted
> on FreeBSD changing the license so they could use it - and the
> quid-pro-quo
> was the reason FreeBSD was to do this was that it would get so many
> benefits
> in return.
What does "FreeBSD" mean in this context?
> FreeBSD did their end, GPL didn't do it's end. It would have been better
> if FreeBSD had simply told GPL "sorry, we aren't going to revoke our
> advert clause" and left it at that.
I still find this argument incomprehensible. Are you suggesting that the
sole purpose the FreeBSD people develop software is to create this
wonderful, powerful "FreeBSD" project? And that anything that doesn't
benefit the project with the name "FreeBSD" somehow doesn't matter?
Why is the fact that FreeBSD software is now helping more people in more
different ways not a good? Why do you see the open source community as
warring factions so that a benefit for everyone overall doesn't count as a
benefit to FreeBSD?
> Of course, there was a lot more to the story than this, but essentially
> boiled down, this is what it was.
Again, I think that's a seriously warped view that ignores the fact that
most people who write free open-source software count it as a plus when
their software benefits more people and improves the quality of more
software, whether or not their project's name is on the door.
> > What is your metric by which success is measured? It's
> >obviously not how
> >many people use the software and how useful they find it to be.
> >
> > If GPL people "strip mine" OpenSSL and take the parts
> >they consider good
> >and leave the parts they consider bad and put together a better and more
> >standards-compliant ssl and cryptography library because of it,
> >why is that
> >not a good thing that should be given weight in the consideration of the
> >benefits of making the license more GPL-compatible?
> I never said it wasn't.
Then why is "FreeBSD did their end, GPL didn't do it's end" even
meaningful?
> But, that's not OpenSSL's problem. The GPL
> people can simply apply the OpenSSL license to whatever product they
> create, if they want to strip mine OpenSSL. This isn't a problem if
> they are writing fresh code.
> It is only a problem (in the GPL's mind) when they want to intermix
> existing GPL code that is already licensed under GPL with OpenSSL
> code. But what your missing is that virtually all existing GPL code
> is copyrighted by the developers that wrote it. Those people can
> simply release it under OpenSSL. Don't you understand this about
> GPL yet?
That's just impossible. Linux, for example, has thousands of
contributors.
It is utterly impossible to get them all to agree to a new license.
> This is how MySQL works. The copyright to MySQL is held by
> the mysq company. The commercial version of mysql (if you buy
> it that is) comes lacking a GPL license. It's the same source
> as the GPL version but the copyright holder has chosen to release
> mysql as a GPL-licensed version and as a commercial-licensed
> version, which is perfectly permitted under copyright law.
>
> The FSF's answer when this loophole is pointed out is "well
> everyone writing GPL should reassign their copyrights to the FSF"
> That is not a bad idea - except virtually nobody does it.
>
> If a developer who has a big GPL-licensed project wants to intermix
> OpenSSL then all he needs to do is release 2 versions of his product -
> one under the GPL which does not have OpenSSL linked in, and
> a second under the OpenSSL license that does have OpenSSL linked
> in. (or under a different BSD-style license, etc.)
How does he obtain the right to do that from the thousands of
contributors?
You think it's easy to start over with a project like Linux? Or gcc?
> > If you look at my views and who I am, you'll find that
> >I'm probably one of
> >the strongest and most vocal GPL critics out there.
>
> You can do the same with me and you will find I've never advocated GPL
> either.
>
> > However, my
> >complaint is
> >generally that the GPL prevents people from using GPL software
> >to improve
> >non-GPL software, causing overall software quality, security, and
> >interoperability to suffer.
>
> But it really doesen't. It is a philosophical, not a legal, issue. The
> problem is that people that release stuff licensed under the GPL
> usually have blinders on and simply will not release anything they
> write under anything but the GPL - not because of the legalities,
> but because they have a religious ferver that the world must be
> GPL and there is no room for anything else.
> In any case I would dispute this. If you look at FreeBSD, the entire
> system is built with what - gcc. That's a case of using GPL software
> to improve non-GPL software right there.
How does that dispute what I said? I didn't say it prevented any
possible
case where any GPL software ever benefits any non-GPL software. That would
obviously be absurd.
> >I think people wrote write open
> >source software
> >for the public good should be more interested in helping people
> >by allowing
> >them to use their software than territorial turf wars to exclude people.
> >
> > Isn't making as much software as possible more secure an
> >inherent good?
> >Think about the forces of evil that secure computing work against -- you
> >know what they are.
> All of that is why the BSD license is really the "free" license, the GPL
> license is anything but free. Yet, the FSF would have you believe
> otherwise and is busy brainwashing everyone they can find.
I agree.
> The strongest Open Source market is one in which all "free" licenses are
> used and nobody is discriminated against. FreeBSD and it's ports
> distribution manges to do this very well. OpenSSL's "advert clause"
> license has just as much right to be in the Open Source community as
> the GPL does. If the GPL camp was willing to work with other licenses
> they would figure out how to do it without being a problem for
> themselves,
> just as FreeBSD figured out how to use GPLized software and many other
> more restrictive licenses than that, without contaminating it's own
> philosophy.
Except the advertising clause stops a lot of people from using OpenSSL,
not
just the GPL crowd. Forced speech is a much higher price to pay than you
might think.
> The problem is I see most of the GPL-pushers acting exactly like the
> Microsquash camp. They have no tolerance for any other licensing
> than their own.
What does that have to do with the actual issue? Specifically:
1) The advertising clause in OpenSSL is not that important to OpenSSL
itself.
2) The advertising clause keeps a lot of people and projects from using
OpenSSL.
3) More people and projects using OpenSSL would be a major good,
improving
the quality of software and security overall.
Why is the turf war more important than that?
DS
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
