Re: [LINUX5250] GPL vs. OpenSSL license

["Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice" <eraserhead@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:41:37PM -0600, Scott Klement wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Unless I'm confused, this is all getting blown way out of proportion.  All
> we really need is to get the copyright holders (Mike, Jay and myself) to
> add the following clause:
>
>    "This program is released under the GPL with the additional exemption
> that compiling, linking, and/or using OpenSSL is allowed."
>

I would do this if we decided it is the way to go.  I don't like the exact
text much, as it doesn't exactly describe the effect we are trying to get
around, but I'd sign off on making a narrow exception for anything I've got
copyright on.

On the other hand, there is GNU TLS.  I don't know who knows this, but
TLS 1.0 can be considered SSL 4.0".  (I wrote a chapter on this which was
recently published in a book ;-)  GNU TLS claims to support TLS 1.0 and
SSL 3.0.

It doesn't claim to support Windows, but my intuition tells me that there's
nothing in the code other than socket calls and file i/o, which means it
should compile fine under cygwin.

http://www.gnutls.org/