>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Schwartz >Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:47 PM >To: openssl-users@openssl.org >Subject: RE: Licenses... > >
>>No, it is not. There is a problem, and that is why there is a >>mechanism IN THE GPL ITSELF to take care of this problem. >>It is very simple and I fail to see why it cannot work. That mechanism >>is to have the FSF issue a variance - if you feel your project >>sufficiently intertwines with the GPL as to make the GPL >>normally become effective. > > Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support the claim >that the FSF can >issue a variance for software whose copyright has not been >assigned to it? > The original copyright holder gave the FSF this right when they used the GPL on their code, because the GPL isn't simply a statement of principles, it is a copyrighted document of the FSF that the original copyright holder only has permission to use if they accept all the terms of the license. And, one of those terms is a clause in the GPL that allows the FSF to change the GPL license in the future. I am aware this hasn't been tested in court, and would probably be invalidated, but I have already said that the entire GPL has not been tested in court, and that if it was parts would be invalidated, that is one of the GPL's weaknesses. One of the FSF's principle jobs is to try to get out-of-court settlements made whenever copyright holders want to litigate against infringers, specifically because the FSF -does not- want the GPL tested in court. So far they have been successful. Ted ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
