PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL

Posted Feb 17, 2011 3:53 UTC (Thu) by dlazaro (guest, #38702)
Parent article: PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL

Shouldn't it be easier to fix Unicode support in libedit?

to post comments

PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL

Posted Feb 17, 2011 7:05 UTC (Thu) by djm (subscriber, #11651) [Link] (1 responses)

Sure, but that wouldn't provide an excuse to bash BSD-license libraries.

PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL

Posted Feb 17, 2011 8:28 UTC (Thu) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link]

OpenSSL's license is neither the original BSD license with the advertising clause, nor the BSD license without the advertising clause, nor even the original BSD license with an advertising clause which changes the name of the credited party.

Read it sometime. It's clearly based on the BSD license but so are many others, like the license on Apache 1.1. Adding any old language you want to the BSD license doesn't retain its identity as "the BSD license".

OpenSSL's license explicitly contains an anti-GPL provision (though it refers to the GPL inaccurately and furthermore betrays a misunderstanding of how the GPL works).

I have to guess that this is what the "positive interest against" the GNU GPL is. Some of the original OpenSSL developers didn't understand it, didn't like it, and are indifferent to the collateral damage caused by their ignorance and hostility.