Dear All,
The linux kernel is including an AES implementation for ARM which comes from
OpenSSL.
I refer to the file: arch/arm/crypto/aes-armv4.S
The file itself contains information about its license:
@
@ Written by Andy
Hi,
if OpenSSL is included in hardware e.g. in a PLC,
where should the copyright notice go?
The hardware has no user interface with an about box or something like that.
So the only place that remains would be the PLC manual.
Would it be enough to write the following acknowledgement from the
The manual must include both the OpenSSL license text (what you
quoted) and the SSLeay license text (which is also to be found in the
LICENSE file). It just needs to be in the printed documentation or,
where no printed documentation exists, in a LICENSE file or
equivalent.
-Kyle H
On Mon, Jan
Ah, so then your going to retract your statement that:
EULAs are agreements, you must actually agree to them to use the work
because clearly you can use the work here (the Windows software)
without agreeing to the EULA.
No, that is the definition of an EULA.
To give an
David Schwartz wrote:
To the extent that there is no affirmative act of agreement to the EULA,
Microsoft will have a hard time enforcing it. I have seen laptops that, on
first customer boot, require you to accept a Microsoft EULA.
I think Microsoft would have hard time
- Original Message -
From: David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 3:39 AM
Subject: RE: license question
These are EULAs. I'm talking about pure copyright licenses like the
OpenSSL, BSD, and GPL licenses. EULAs
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 5:28 PM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: license question
- Original Message -
From: David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED
- Original Message -
From: Richard Salz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: license question
There are many funny licensing clauses that appear nonsensical to the
layman but are perfectly logical. The SSLeay
The other alternative is that you're not very good at reading it. :)
/r$
--
SOA Appliances
Application Integration Middleware
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support
- Original Message -
From: David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: RE: license question
You can start out with an OEM license, load that on another
piece of hardware, then get the holder to sue you. I'd
These are EULAs. I'm talking about pure copyright licenses like the
OpenSSL, BSD, and GPL licenses. EULAs are agreements, you must actually
agree to them to use the work and this is actually enforced in some
manner.
Incorrect, see the following (I found on a quick scan):
- Original Message -
From: David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: license question
What is actually going on when the end-user runs OpenSSL and it
dynamically links in your restricted library, or the end
- Original Message -
From: David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 5:22 AM
Subject: RE: license question
I wholeheartedly disagree. You cannot violate the OpenSSL
license by using
OpenSSL.
The end user
There are many funny licensing clauses that appear nonsensical to the
layman but are perfectly logical. The SSLeay and OpenSSL license is
an extremely sloppy and poorly defined document because the people
who wrote it were under the misguided assumption that good legal
documentation is
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
What is actually going on when the end-user runs OpenSSL and it
dynamically links in your restricted library, or the end user compiles
the unrestricted OpenSSL into your restricted library, is that they
are committing a license violation of the OpenSSL license when
they start using the
Ryan Shon wrote:
I work for nFocal, a company in
Rochester, New York. We want to develop a variant of OpenSSL
in which we optimize the cryptography library to run on
a particular DSP. The other components of OpenSSL would remain
unchanged except where needed to utilize our custom library.
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: related license question
Certainly. Nothing in the OpenSSL licenses requires you to allow
redistribution of any
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...
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Shon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:07 PM
Subject: related license question
Thank you for the clarification. What you have said
makes sense, but I am still a little unclear on what
is meant
- Original Message -
From: David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: related license question
Thank you for the clarification. What you have said
makes sense, but I am still a little unclear on what
: license question
Richard Koenning wrote:
Ryan Shon wrote:
In particular, we are unclear as to what redistribution rights
the OpenSSL license would grant to customers who purchase
our OpenSSL variant. Would they be allowed to redistribute
our optimized library?
It depends on how YOU
Originally I sent this letter to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
as indicated by the license file, but I never got a
response.
Hopefully you in openssl-users can help.
I work for nFocal, a company in
Rochester, New York. We want to develop a variant of OpenSSL
in which we optimize the cryptography library
Ryan Shon wrote:
In particular, we are unclear as to what redistribution rights
the OpenSSL license would grant to customers who purchase
our OpenSSL variant. Would they be allowed to redistribute
our optimized library?
The license enumerates the conditions which have to be met for
Richard Koenning wrote:
Ryan Shon wrote:
In particular, we are unclear as to what redistribution rights
the OpenSSL license would grant to customers who purchase
our OpenSSL variant. Would they be allowed to redistribute
our optimized library?
The license enumerates the conditions which
Ryan Shon wrote:
My boss hopes to sell this OpenSSL variant as a product. Because
of this, he would not want customers who buy this product to be
free to redistribute it on their own. If we were only to modify
existing OpenSSL, then I assume our entire product would be subject
to free
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:47:12 +0200, Richard
Koenning [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Richard.Koenning Ryan Shon wrote:
Richard.Koenning
Richard.Koenning My boss hopes to sell this OpenSSL variant as a
Richard.Koenning product. Because of this, he would not want
Thank you for the clarification. What you have said
makes sense, but I am still a little unclear on what
is meant by redistribution and products derived from [OpenSSL].
Presumably, a program, e.g. a web browser, could be written
which uses OpenSSL (whether through linking to the libraries or
by
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:07:31 -0400, Ryan Shon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rshon Presumably, a program, e.g. a web browser, could be written
rshon which uses OpenSSL (whether through linking to the libraries or
rshon by including actual pieces of OpenSSL code), and this
Thank you for the clarification. What you have said
makes sense, but I am still a little unclear on what
is meant by redistribution and products derived from [OpenSSL].
The term redistribution means any distribution of OpenSSL or a
derivative
work of OpenSSL other than what you
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding the combination of phrases 3 and 4 of the
OpenSSL license:
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
*software must display the following acknowledgment:
*This product
The last paragraph of the license says:
* The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version
or
* derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot
simply be
* copied and put under another distribution licence
* [including the GNU Public Licence.]
That part of the license doesn't actually add anything that wasn't
already there under standard copyright terms. That part of the license
is from the days when the codebase was SSLeay, the product of Eric and
Tim. Years ago. AT the time, it was not uncommon for someone to rip
off open source
My company is using OpenSSL in one of their applications. I cannot find the
license(s) associated with OpenSSL at openssl.org. Can you point me in the
right direction or email them to me.
Thanks
Brad Mock, Contracts Negotiator
ADP - Dealer Services Division
2525 SW First Ave, Suite 450
34 matches
Mail list logo
