In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:48:16 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tedm> Since SSLeay is part of OpenSSL, Eric Young is by definition tedm> an OpenSSL author. That's a matter of definition, and I don't agree. Eric hasn't written one byte of OpenSSL code since the start of OpenSSL. The OpenSSL peoject has taken over the SSLeay code, which comes under the SSLeay license. tedm> Therefore my statement is valid, as much as you may not like tedm> it. That is, the OpenSSL authors (you included) DON'T want to tedm> change the license. Don't put words in my mouth. I personally do want it, but there are some hoops to jump and it goes slowly, and I have no interest in acting a lone cowboy in this project. tedm> I am sure you are going to squawk and claim that you want to tedm> change it. But, Richard, you appointed yourself to talk for the tedm> rest of the OpenSSL authors when you started arguing with me. Not at all, I spoke for myself (I do believe I said that clearly enough), and only reported what I have seen happening within the group. I am *not* speaking for anyone else in the group, that's entirely up to them. And you know, considering the heat and the visciousness of this debate, I think they are the smarter when keeping away. tedm> If the OpenSSL group consensus was that this advert clause was tedm> that onerous, you would as a group, excluding the developers tedm> like Eric who want the clause intact, excise the portion of the tedm> code that has a problem and rewrite it. Right. Let's see, I have no life and nothing to deal with every day that earns me money so I can survive. Basically, I've 24 hours a day to work on OpenSSL. Is that what you're saying? And pardon me for pointing this out, but OpenSSL *is* a volunteer organisation, what exactly have YOU done to help out? Since you have no problem with a license change in the future, I'm sure you don't mind when we remove the advert clause on your contributions. tedm> This is exactly what the GPL does when they find code they tedm> want with some undigestible bits in it (ie: incompatible with tedm> GPL) they rewrite the bits. The OpenSSL Project has the same tedm> option. ... but not the same resources, it seems. tedm> What the GPL does is overlay the GPL over code that they use in tedm> their GPL projects. The original license may remain but since tedm> the GPL is more restrictive, it becomes the defacto license. Not true. If a GPLed project uses a piece of code with a different license, that piece of code keeps it and can be reused under that license, not the GPL. That the GPL is used for the whole project and the rest of the files in the project is a non-issue. Please read up on copyright law, on how licenses really work and are applied. I have. Cheers, Richard ----- Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://richard.levitte.org/ "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C.S. Lewis ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
