License is a non-issue?

Hi,

I went through the source files looking at the licenses.  Almost every
file in the distribution contains the "weaker" version of the GPL, that
states:

       "The exception is that if you link the TN5250 library with
        other files to produce an executable, this does not by itself
        cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU
        General Public License.  Your use of that executable is in no
        way restricted on account of lining the TN5250 library code into
        it."

The exception to that rule are these files:

      conf.c, conf.h       (copyright by Jason M. Felice)
      getopt.c, getopt.h   (Not used at all, we should remove these)
      scs2pdf.c, tn5250.c  (copyright by Michael Madore)

Consequently, I'm not sure that there would be a conflict with
distributing binaries.  Here's why:

On Linux, FreeBSD, other unix & unix-like OSes:
     OpenSSL comes with the operating system, and therefore is not
     restricted by the GPL (as Steve Fox mentioned today).  For the
     other OSes, where OpenSSL may not be included, a binary version
     would still be problematic, but they could always build from source.

On Windows:
     None of the six files (above) are used by the Windows port.
     Therefore, they are not an issue.

So, it does not appear that we have a conflict at all.  However, we may
want to update the licenses in this manner:

     a) Use the same license on scs2ascii, lp5250d, the win32 stuff
          that we're using for tn5250.c.   These shouldn't be referring
          to themselves as part of the "TN5250 library".

     b) Add the "openssl exception" to each file that uses the
          "non-library" license, in the event we ever wish to make
          binary ports to systems that don't have OpenSSL included.

That's my recommendation at this point.