On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 17:23 -0500, Mike Miller wrote: > > > Is SSL non-free? I didn't know that. > > > > Yes, the FSF has been very aggressive about protecting the phrase Free > > Software. They define it as software having GPL compatable licensing. > > Which OpenSSL (really the only implimentation of SSL that matters) does > > not have. > > Interesting. I found some info here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSSL#Licensing > > It is a fairly trivial deviation from freeness, but it is a deviation. > Stallman probably pursues it because he won't use non-free and he > wants them to change the license. It is good code and he could use > it! For clarification on the OpenSSL license, please see below. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard M. Stallman <rms at gnu.org> Date: Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:30 PM Subject: Re: tea in Minneapolis To: Adam Monsen <haircut at gmail.com> > This post sums up the "SSL is not free" discussion: > http://tinyurl.com/4gyszm I decided not to fetch that, because I think you've shown what the issue is. > The post refers to this wikipedia article section stating > that OpenSSL is not GPL-compatible: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSSL#Licensing There is a widespread misconception that "free" means "licensed under the GNU GPL", but that is not so. OpenSSL's license is a free license, according to the definition (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). It is true that the OpenSSL license is incompatible with the GNU GPL, but that doesn't make it unethical. See the list of licenses in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html for more info. Could you please post this where the people who had that discussion will see it? ---------- End Forwarded message ---------- -- Adam Monsen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20081006/18793d9d/attachment.pgp