Re: [LINUX5250] Re: GPL vs. OpenSSL license

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah, I saw that yesterday when I was reading the OpenSSL FAQ... it
explains that your GPLed software can use OpenSSL if it comes with the OS,
but may not work out if OpenSSL does not come with the OS.

They recommend not using the GPL :)  But then they go on to explain that
you can add an exception to your license, etc...


On 6 Feb 2002, Steve Fox wrote:
>
> I got a response back from Kurt Z. and it sounds like he agrees with the
> route of amending the license. But he has some other interesting
> comments too about the GPL. So at least on Linux and *BSD the current
> licensing should be ok. But on Windows (and probably proprietary UNIX)
> people would have to install the OpenSSL libraries on their own.
>
> =========================
> Kurt wrote:
>
> The GNU GPL is purposely designed not to co-exist with other licenses.
> However, there is a general out that most folks miss in the GNU GPL.
>
>       However, as a special exception, the source code distributed
>       need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
>       either source or binary form) with the major components
>       (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which
>       the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
>       the executable.
>
> OpenSSL is a normally distributed major component of the Linux operating
> system on which the executables. That is, you have a problem if you
> distribute OpenSSL libraries with the executable.
>
> Of course, this is not true with many non-Linux operating systems such
> as AIX.   The solution is for the tn5250 project to note an except to
> the GNU GPL in their copyright section (much like Linus does for the
> kernel) or to switch to a less restrictive license than the GNU GPL).
>