Re: GPL vs. OpenSSL license -- LINUX5250

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: [LINUX5250] GPL vs. OpenSSL license
From: James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:59:33 -0700 (MST)
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/linux5250/>
List-help: <mailto:linux5250-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Linux 5250 Development Project <linux5250.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:linux5250@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/linux5250>,<mailto:linux5250-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/linux5250>,<mailto:linux5250-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Scott Klement wrote:

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

Let's please keep the license GPL.  It is because of the differences in
the BSD/GPL licenses that I prefer the GPL.  How about we convince the
OpenSSL people to switch to the GPL instead?  (well, what did you expect
from the RMS supporter guy :)

James Rich
james@eaerich.com

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: GPL vs. OpenSSL license , Brian Finn

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.