Re: TODO: GNU TLS

[Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>]

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc (mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc) wrote:
>   
> > In conclusion - I'll restate. The only license that can restrict the
> > distribution of OpenSSL, is the OpenSSL license. The GPL is not relevant
> > in determining where OpenSSL may be distributed to.
> >     
>
> The issue is not the distribution of OpenSSL but rather the distribution
> of GPL applications which link against OpenSSL.
> Because of the GPL the resulting application can not have any
> *additional* restrictions on it (meaning it can be linked against libpq
> without any problem because libpq's license doesn't add any restrictions,
> but can't be against OpenSSL because the OpenSSL license adds the
> advertising clause which isn't in the GPL).
>
> *That's* the issue here, not whatever it is you were arguing against.
>   

Stephen, you write as if there were no legal disagreement about this. 
But there is, as you well know. My understanding is that most of the 
non-FSF lawyers who have looked at this think it's not a problem. I am 
not a lawyer, and AFAIK neither are you. Maybe we all need to stop 
playing Perry Mason and take some well informed legal advice.

cheers

andrew