Re: openssl

[Joel Rees <joel_(_at_)_alpsgiken_(_dot_)_gr_(_dot_)_jp>]

> > >  > it means that OpenSSL is becoming a non-free software project, because
> > >  > 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".
> > > 
> > > No, it doesn't. 

Still wondering how it "doesn't".

If they make use of their "gift" conditional on our agreement not to sue
them, is it a gift, really? (Exodus 23: 8; Isaiah 1: 23)

> > > It says "If you agree not to sue us, we'll agree not
> > > to sue you."  Covenant:  http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c323.htm
> > > How does that restrict your freedom?
> > 
> > It blocks my right to sue them.
> 
> Can this agreement be made according to the american law?

Sure. It's called a contract.

(Details vary by jurisdiction, however. Some states consider certain
forms of stupid contracts to be inherently deceptive, so that such
contracts can be made, but can't be enforced in those states.)

> How stupid.

The freedom to make stupid contracts is an essential freedom. 

The freedom to avoid stupid contracts is another essential freedom, and
a much better freedom to exercise, IMO.

Here's another case where governments must either recognize both
freedoms or limit them both.

But openBSD is not a government, even if it represents a community. You
might say that one of the contracts of this community is to avoid
encouraging each other to make stupid contracts.

Participation in the community is voluntary, of course.

-- 
Joel Rees <joel_(_at_)_alpsgiken_(_dot_)_gr_(_dot_)_jp>