Re: [LINUX5250] GPL vs. OpenSSL license

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yay!  let's switch to the BSD license!  (well, what did you expect from
the FreeBSD guy?)

A few points, however:

     1) If you configure the emulator without SSL support, it does not
           use any OpenSSL code, and therefore the license conflict
           should be a non-issue.

     2) The Windows version does not use tn5250.c, but only uses the
           lib5250 code.  I'd be more than happy to change tn5250-win.c
           & friends to a BSD-style license :)   Though, I have the same
           exception clause in tn5250-win.c, etc as they used in lib5250.

     Of course, this means that the Un*X version should still be kept
     in a non-binary format until we fix the license problem.


On 5 Feb 2002, Carey Evans wrote:

> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news about laws etc. again, but I've
> realised that, due to the interaction between the advertising clause
> in the OpenSSL license (conditions 3 and 6), and section 6 of the GNU
> GPL, nobody is actually allowed to distribute binaries of tn5250.
>
> This applies to the license on tn5250.c; I'm not sure how it interacts
> with the sort-of-GPL on the source for lib5250, but I think the
> exception just defers to the license on tn5250.c.
>
> The only way out of this, as far as I know, is for the copyright
> holder(s) of the GPL bits of tn5250 to change the license.
> Possibilities are to use a less restrictive license like the LGPL (or
> MIT or BSD license) instead, or to add an exception for OpenSSL like
> some of KDE has for Qt.
>