Re: [LINUX5250] GPL vs. OpenSSL license

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5 Feb 2002, Steve Fox wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 12:26, Scott Klement wrote:
> >  -- NSS requires the Netscape Portable Runtime (NSPR) as well as the
> >       Netscape Build Environment...   This would make it somewhat more
> >       complicated to build the emulator.
>
> Not too big of a deal on modern *NIX systems since most ship Mozilla.
>
> >  -- To build NSS on Windows requires both Cygwin and MS Visual C++.
> >       Cygwin isn't that big of a deal, it complicates the setup
> >       instructions but at least it's open source.  MSVC however is
> >       not.  It's at least USD$ 500!
>
> Ouch! I didn't realize this. This would stink, although I think most
> Windows users just want to install a binary and go. If some kind soul
> with a MSVC license would be kind enough to compile the releases.
>
> > All this because we love the GPL so much?
>
> I personally prefer the GPL, but I think this decision is really only up
> to you, Mike, and Jay.
>
> Kurt Zeilenga works for IBM now, so I'll forward him your original note
> and ask him if he has any recommended direction for the project.
>
> <grumble>I *really* hate the advertising clause</grumble>
>

I'm not thrilled with OpenSSL's advertising clause, either.  It's
reminiscent of the old BSD licenses, which they admitted were a bad idea,
and are no longer used.

However, completely re-doing this to use MS Visual C++ seems like a whole
lot of work, just to avoid adding this phrase to the license:

      "This program is released under the GPL with the additional
       exemption that compiling, linking, and/or using OpenSSL is
       allowed."

I mean, do we really want to require an expensive compiler, complicate
the build environment, and so on just becuase we don't want to add a
sentence to the license?!

Am I just lazy?