* Andrew Dunstan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > >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.
I was trying to explain the issue as I understood it. I'm happy to admit that not everyone feels this is an issue (in fact, I've said as much elsewhere in this thread). That doesn't mean there aren't some who *do* feel it's an issue though. > 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. I'm certainly not a lawyer and I'd be astounded if anyone felt I represented myself as such. I don't have opinions from any lawyers beyond Tom's comments previously from RH's legal team and FSF's comments on the issue. I don't know where the 'most of the non-FSF lawyers' claim comes from, if you're aware of others who have commented on it I'd be happy to listen to them. I do know that this has been an issue for Debian for quite some time and it seems rather unlikely that Debian's position on it will change. SPI does have a pro-bono lawyer but I don't know that this question has been posed to him, probably because the general consensus among the Debian Powers that Be is that it is an issue and we try to not bother our pro-bono lawyer too much (being, uh, pro-bono and all). Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature