On April 17, 2006 06:48 pm, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Since SSLeay is part of OpenSSL, Eric Young is by definition an > OpenSSL author.
Egads man, would you please stop twatting on like this?! This is truly truly painful to watch. As if it weren't annoying enough to see the license getting (re)debated, despite the fact there's fsck all that can be done about it as things stand, we have to sift through your steaming piles of histrionics. Laxatives should be a strictly private matter, surely?! <grumble> > Therefore my statement is valid, as much as you may not like it. > That is, the OpenSSL authors (you included) DON'T want to change > the license. Richard has generously attempted to discuss this with you in a reasonable manner. Allow me to try another tack; blow it out your ear, doofus. If your point is that the "openssl authors" don't want to change the license because Eric (presumably) doesn't want to change the license, then there is nowhere left to take this discussion. Well, except perhaps to raise the issue with Richard Dawkins, who will no doubt be worried to discover that, busily posting away to openssl-users, is clear evidence of a significant anomaly that Darwinism can't explain. Yes, that's an insult, but I can assure you it's public domain - feel free to make lots of copies for yourself. > I am sure you are going to squawk and claim that you want to change > it. But, Richard, you appointed yourself to talk for the rest of the > OpenSSL authors when you started arguing with me ?! What the hell have you been smoking?? Richard was speaking for himself, as were you. Unlike yourself however, Richard clearly was taking very few, if any, hallucinogens. If you want to redistribute openssl with any of the license clauses removed (and/or replaced) - go ahead and try it. Good luck. In the mean time, please, for the love of all that is holy, stop buzzing like a detuned radio. This may be a difficult idea to swallow, but many people have thought about this issue, some have even discussed it with lawyers well-versed in the subject-matter, and bursting onto the forum as though you've had some mythic vision of a license nirvana for openssl is a sad spectacle to have to endure. Ragging on Richard because he apparently just can't understand your brilliance or worse, refuses to be enlightened by it, just makes this fscking aggravating to boot. Discuss, question, reflect - by all means. But deranged evangalism should stay confined to the privacy of your own home (or nearest foreign policy think-tank). Sincerely, An author other than Richard -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.openssl.org/ ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
