Re: License is a non-issue?

"Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice" <eraserhead@eraserhead.net> writes:

> These should have the exception clause.  I don't have time at the moment, but
> I've signed this message, so it's me in case anyone is paranoid.  Someone
> can add the exception.

Something, probably the list server, seems to have stripped the
signature before it reached me.

> I'm surprised lp5250d.c and scs2ascii.c are not on the list.  Basically the
> idea was to put the library source under LGPL but the actual programs under
> GPL.

The license on the library isn't actually the LGPL.  To me, it looks
like something the FSF might have come up with before writing up the
proper LGPL, and it's actually much weaker as I read it.

> Come to think of it, nothing that links against openssl is under the GPL
> instead of the LGPL, so we should not have to worry about anything.  In any
> case, I'm of the opinion that we aren't lawyers, and if someone wants to
> bitch (as in an OpenSSL copyright holder), we'll figure out a way to resolve
> their *specific* complaints.

There's not actually anything wrong as far as the OpenSSL license is
concerned, as long as we obey the advertising clauses.  The BSD
license doesn't ask much.

It's just that the copyright holders (you, Mike and Scott, I'd say)
have given people the right to copy compiled binaries of tn5250 (the
"derived work") as long as the GPL's requirements are met; they can't
meet them, though, because they're required to include OpenSSL in
their advertising.

Obviously, none of you are going to actually sue someone for
distributing tn5250 binaries anyway, but everyone that wants to
distribute them has to decide whether to infringe copyright law
themselves or not.

--
         Carey Evans  http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/

                             Cavem canus.