Re: GNU TLS vs. OpenSSL

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Thomas Lussnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Hi, i already had send an patch for GNU TLS but if there is not very
 much done since than it is no real choice of using it in production
 environment. It leak many of the used chipers and protocl from what
 i see when i wrote the patch. This is about one year ago.

We might want to try again.  I've now made it much easier to integrate
transport layers into Wget, so adding support for TLS should be much
less of a hassle.

RE: GNU TLS vs. OpenSSL

[Aaron S. Hawley]

From Various Licenses and Comments about Them
http://www.gnu.ctssn.com/licenses/license-list.html

The OpenSSL license.
The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, One of them
being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. The combination results
in a copyleft free software license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD license and the
Apache license.

We recommend using GNUTLS instead of OpenSSL in software you write.
However, there is no reason not to use OpenSSL and applications that work
with OpenSSL.

shouldn't the above say say non-copyleft?
/a

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Post, Mark K wrote:

 I'm a little confused.  OpenSSL is licensed pretty much the same as Apache.
 What's the GPL issue with that style of license?


 Mark Post

 -Original Message-
 From: Hrvoje Niksic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:27 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: GNU TLS vs. OpenSSL


 Does anyone know what the situation is regarding the use of GNU TLS
 vs. OpenSSL?  Last time I checked (several years ago), GNU TLS was
 still in beta; also, it was incompatible with OpenSSL.

 Is GNU TLS usable now?  Should Wget try to use it in preference to
 OpenSSL and thus get rid of the GPL exception?

Re: GNU TLS vs. OpenSSL

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Post, Mark K [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 I'm a little confused.  OpenSSL is licensed pretty much the same as
 Apache.  What's the GPL issue with that style of license?

I don't speak for the FSF, but from reading the license, it imposes
additional constraints, specifically the advertising clause.  That
makes it incompatible with the GPL, despite of it clearly being free
software.  There might be other incompatibilities I'm not aware of.

The exception, phrased by Eben Moglen and approved by RMS, allows
distributors such as Debian to legally distribute SSL-enabled Wget
binaries.