Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote:
> To save you some time: this has been rehashed on the OpenSSL lists and
> the conclusion is basically:
>
> 1. It's not a problem, it's the GPLs problem
> 2. It doesn't appear they can change the licence for some reason
>
> We are not the first people to run into this, nor will we be the last.
> The only long term solution is to use GnuTLS instead which doesn't have
> these issues (it's straight LGPL). This is something postgresql can and
> would solve the problem entirely.
I'd call that the short term solution, with the long term solution
being to finally convince the right people to remove that clause from
OpenSSL's license.
> [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openssl-users&m=97417764222228&w=2
That one definately helped, thanks. :-) Following that thread, I got
here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openssl-users&m=97419073107910&w=2
Which seems to indicate that the people that need to be pestered are
Eric Young and Tim Hudson.
I've got to wonder how legal the SSLeay clause is though;
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* "This product includes cryptographic software written by
* Eric Young (eay@cryptsoft.com)"
* The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the library
* being used are not cryptographic related :-).
"rouines"? ;-)
Cheers,
Tyler
