> The entire body of source code which makes up OpenSSL and is > distributed as OpenSSL, btw, might fall under the "compilation > copyright" rules. My understanding of those rules (which govern > things like phone books, dictionaries, databases, and anything else > that sources from multiple places and publishes as a conglomerate) is > that you cannot take something from a compilation and use it under any > license except that which you obtained from the compilation. (If you > receive it independently from the original author, you can use it > under the license terms you negotiate with the original author. But, > OpenSSL cannot claim anything other than "it is distributed with and > by virtue of the license that OpenSSL was granted by the contributor" > -- and without permission of the original contributor cannot change > that license.)
No, that is not correct. Relicensing can only take place with the written consent of the original author. So how you receive the work doesn't matter unless the person you received it from had a written relicensing agreement with the author. The GPL states this explicitly in section 6. Other licenses must work the same way by law, absent written agreements with the original author to the contrary. Regardless of how you receive a work, you receive whatever license the original author offers. Nobody else is entitled to offer the work under any other terms, absent a written agreement. > This license has a clause which requires advertising any portion of > code's presence. I don't think the license can compel you to make a demonstrably false statement. I think such a clause would be considered unconscionable. However, if the clauses are true under any reasonable interpretation at all, then it's probably not unconscionable to compel them. The would likely have to be unambiguously false, demonstrable clearly. In any event, it's still incompatible with the GPL. Being forced to retain terms and conditions is the same as an advertising clause. The GPL prohibits any compulsion to retain content -- other than the GPL itself. "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." Notice it says notices that refer to *this* license and the absence of any warranty. You cannot compel the retention of anything else. But the OpenSSL license required you to retain notices about use of the "OpenSSL" name and a note from the OpenSSL license that conditions must be kept. These cannot reasonably be considered notices that refer to the GPL or the absence of warranty, so the GPL prohibits you from compelling their retention, which the OpenSSL license does. Then OpenSSL license is incompatible with the GPL, and not just because of the advertising clauses. DS ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
