[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: openssl
- From: David Norman <norny_(_at_)_yahoo_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
I have no reason to sue Sun in the forseeable future, so having ECC in
OpenSSL/mod_ssl is welcome on my machines.
--- Theo de Raadt <deraadt_(_at_)_cvs_(_dot_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org> wrote:
> some of you asked us what that ECC donation from Sun to OpenSSL
> so what does it mean?
> it means that OpenSSL is becoming a non-free software project,
> the code from Sun contains licenses which invoke patent litigation;
> the licence on the new code basically builds a contract that says "if
> you use this code, you cannot sue Sun".
> In such a way, by means of the slippery slope, a free software
> becomes not as free, and eventually, less and less free.
> Before anyone speaks up about and says "that restriction does not
> affect me". It does indirectly affect you. It means that some other
> vendor that uses this code, and subsequently ends up having a spat
> with Sun, ends up wasting money on legal efforts, and our entire
> society pays for that. My take on it, is that this is the way the
> legal industry ensures itself future work.
> On the other hand, here in OpenBSD land we will continue to strive to
> make our software more and more free. We've been squishing odd
> license terms which contain non-free restrictions throughout the
> source tree for about 2 years now.
> once again, i think it is time to fork OpenSSL. It's obviously run
> a bunch of people who don't think through the legal implications of
> their actions. they should NOT have accepted that code without it
> being 100% free.
> This donation is not free code. Shame on you Sun, and double shame
> you OpenSSL.
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!