Stephen Frost wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In conclusion - I'll restate. The only license that can restrict the
distribution of OpenSSL, is the OpenSSL license. The GPL is not relevant
in determining where OpenSSL may be distributed to.
The issue is not the distribution of OpenSSL but rather the distribution
of GPL applications which link against OpenSSL.
Because of the GPL the resulting application can not have any
*additional* restrictions on it (meaning it can be linked against libpq
without any problem because libpq's license doesn't add any restrictions,
but can't be against OpenSSL because the OpenSSL license adds the
advertising clause which isn't in the GPL).
*That's* the issue here, not whatever it is you were arguing against.
Stephen, you write as if there were no legal disagreement about this.
But there is, as you well know. My understanding is that most of the
non-FSF lawyers who have looked at this think it's not a problem. I am
not a lawyer, and AFAIK neither are you. Maybe we all need to stop
playing Perry Mason and take some well informed legal advice.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
