Re: 2 is not prime?

[John L. Ries]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Hi,


$ openssl version
OpenSSL 0.9.7f 22 Mar 2005
$ openssl prime 2
2 is not prime

But.. 2 is prime right?


correct. but its the only even prime number - hence its an odd prime number!
;-)

perhaps this fact/quirk is why its not known as prime?

alan


Not a quirk.  The set of even numbers is the set of whole numbers 
divisible by 2, making 2 the only even prime by definition.


Kind of like the quirk that the only prime number whose digits add up to 
3 is 3.


--|
John L. Ries  |
Salford Systems   |
Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 |
or (435)865-5723  |
--|

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: related license question

[John L. Ries]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, David Schwartz wrote:




Certainly. Nothing in the OpenSSL licenses requires you to allow
redistribution of any derivative works you create.



Wrong.  See the following:

...The licence and distribution terms for any publically
available version
or
 derivative of this code cannot be changed...

http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html


I always assumed that publically available version meant an open 
source
distribution and didn't apply to proprietary code where the source isn't
made available at all. But now that you point it out, it's not clear at all
exactly what that means. In any event, it doesn't compel you to make the
source available, but it could mean that you can't prevent redistribution of
the binaries.

IANAL, but this is a fairly standard BSD-style license and such have 
always allowed proprietory derivative works.  I see nothing here that 
forbids distributors from imposing additional terms on derivative works 
(unlike the GPL).


--|
John L. Ries  |
Salford Systems   |
Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 |
or (435)865-5723  |
--|
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses...

[John L. Ries]

I detect an attempt to propose a compromise (a sensible one, says me, and 
I work for a proprietory software developer).  For shame!  :-)


--|
John L. Ries  |
Salford Systems   |
Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 |
or (435)865-5723  |
--|


On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Kyle Hamilton wrote:


On 4/14/06, Tyler MacDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

listen to yourself, your speaking as though software should be distributed
and sold exactly like Windows server products are: aimed at the
administrators who are just pretending to be adminstrators, and who are
not real professionals.



Thank goodness that FreeBSD has the ports collection, this kind of
attitude of everything binary only is sickening.


I'm not saying binary only, I'm saying binary too!!!


All the GPL requires is that binary distributions of a GPL'd software
must include the source, or include a written offer to make the source
available for a nominal copying charge; it also requires that the
license be included so that the person licensing the program knows
that they have that right, granted by the copyright holder of the
program.  It doesn't have any obnoxious advertising clauses if the
source is included, and the file LICENSE is merely placed in the
program's directory and doesn't have to be shown during installation.
(However, most GPL'd software distributed in binary form, at least on
Windows, does show it as part of InstallShield's License screen.)




 I can hardly tell if I'm on an open source mailing list or a Microsoft
product mailing list.  One of the main strengths of using open source is
that since it's open you can modify it and fix bugs - even the FSF and I
agree on this - and you want to turn back the clock and have everyone
dependent on binaries some CDrom distributor created?


I'm not saying dependant, I'm saying available!!!


As it stands, someone could -- AND HAS, historically -- take any
version of any BSD-licensed software and make a binary-only
distribution out of it, and refuse to make the source (and the changes
that they've made) available.  The purpose of the obnoxious BSD
advertising clause was to ensure that the origin of the software was
not ignored or denied.

However, with open-source projects that are typically compiled and
used by systems administrators and supported by support companies, the
source for the library is as easy to include as the source for the
program that uses the library.  So...

Why not an advertising clause exemption for non-binary (i.e., source)
distributions, and binaries that accompany such source distributions?
That would make the license GPL-friendly (thus increasing the ability
for organizations to adopt open-source software without their lawyers
getting anxious -- let's face it, free software, such as gcc, is a
very significant subset of what open-source software has to offer)
while at the same time allowing for the current system of proprietary
binaries built from BSD+advert software to still maintain
representation of the origin of the software.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]