Re: ORBit2 and linc - licensing?

[Alex Graveley <alex ximian com>]

Hi,

On 21 May 2001 23:22:07 +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
> Considering that the support is - as far as I can see - optional, I don't
> personaly see a problem. Enities not desiring openssl support would not
> include it. Entities not wanting to ship openssl due to the advertising
> cluase can skip shipping it and merely point it out to the users that if
> the click on the 'enable ssl support in orbit' checkbox, they will need to
> download or compile openssl for teh installation to be functional. But teh
> decision should - in my very humble opinion - be left to these entities.

The problem is, that as far as I can see, the advertising clause covers
usage, not distribution.  Doesn't this mean that if a proprietary app is
dynamically linked with a Linc which uses openssl (I assume most vendors
will ship packages this way), they are now subject to the OpenSSL
license?

Oh well, the advertising clause does only say you have to mention
OpenSSL if you are advertising the features provided by OpenSSL. So
perhaps as long as the Entity doesn't use SSL, they are fine after all.

-Alex

-- 
 make: *** No rule to make target `sense'.  Stop.