4 ms·

> The irony of what's happening here, that dogmatism about a belief is causing an inferior solution to be used, is infuriating and one of the reasons people hav

> The irony of what's happening here, that dogmatism about a belief is causing an inferior solution to be used, is infuriating and one of the reasons people have such a problem with dogmatic personalities like rms. It's technically illegal to use a better solution because of something as relatively unimportant as a license. Why do you jump to blame the GPL and rms, when one could just as easily fault the OpenSSL authors for using the 4-clause BSD instead of the far more common 3-clause? > It's technically illegal to use a better solution because of something as relatively unimportant as a license. No, it is technically illegal to distribute compiled binaries that use OpenSSL, because the OpenSSL authors wanted to retain the advertising privileges. But it is not illegal to use the software as long as it is distributed in source and compiled by the end user. I would not call licensing unimportant. As long as software is copyrightable, licensing terms are highly important.

pierrebai 13y ago
The reason the GPL is annoying is that free license with an advertizing clause have existed for a very long time and are actually widely used. A quick look at the about box of various software will usually show you a long list of mandatory acknowledgements for various open source licenses. The problem is that the GPL willingly refuses to permit advertizing clauses. Is there a congent argument about why an advertizing clause is a limitation of freedom? The GPL is more often than other free licenses putting restirctions on usage of diversely licensed software. It is an impediment. And, as we see, it has real-world consequences. There is more risk for freedom using bad software security than wielding to innocuous clauses.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > The problem is that the GPL willingly refuses to permit advertizing clauses. Is there a congent argument about why an advertizing clause is a limitation of freedom The advertising clause is not a limitation on freedom. The 4-clause BSD license is a free software license; it just happens not to be compatible with the GPL (not all free software licenses are). The reasons for this are very practical: not only does it place additional restrictions on the software (which is not permitted by the GPL), but if multiple 4-clause BSD projects are used, each project requires its own separate advertising statement (the 4-clause license does not permit combining these into a single sentence): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html > The reason the GPL is annoying is that free license with an advertizing clause have existed for a very long time and are actually widely used. Most modern projects using permissive licenses use 3-clause BSD, MIT/X11, or Apache, all of which are compatible with the GPL. In this day and age, choosing a 4-clause BSD license is a fairly conscious decision to make the project incompatible with the GPL.
  - justin66 13y ago
    > In this day and age, choosing a 4-clause BSD license is a fairly conscious decision to make the project incompatible with the GPL. Complaining about this seems a bit strange, since GPL is deliberately incompatible with everything else when it comes to sharing. OpenSSL's license, although kooky, is freer than the GPL in terms of who can use the stuff covered by it.
    - chimeracoder 13y ago
      > Complaining about this seems a bit strange, For the record, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that it's unfair to blame the incompatibility solely on the GPL (as OP seemed to be), when the developer is the one who chooses the license for their software. (And I presume the OpenSSL authors are experienced enough to be familiar with the compatibility differences between the 3-clause vs. 4-clause BSD license). > OpenSSL's license, although kooky, is freer than the GPL in terms of who can use the stuff covered by it. No, both are equally free. Both of them respect the four freedoms, so they are both free licenses. (The 4-clause BSD is arguably more permissive, but on the other hand, the GPL permits one to advertise the software without any restrictions, so it really depends on which of those two one values more. Generally the copyleft clause is what people care about more than advertising, but it's important to note both).
  - hyc_symas 13y ago
    Choosing the 4-clause BSD license is a conscious decision to continue to receive credit for all your hard work, when a proprietary software company comes along and includes your code in their product. To me this is a fair compromise for proprietary companies who refuse to open up their source code (i.e., would never touch GPL at all).
    - chimeracoder 13y ago
      As I mention in a reply to the sibling comment, I don't fault the developer for choosing a free software license that suits their purposes. I just don't think it's fair to blame the GPL for the incompatibility that happens when a developer chooses a 4-clause BSD license. (Also, remember that the developer could always dual-license - ie, "GPL or 4-clause BSD - if you want to use my software in proprietary code, then you have to advertise me").
- dalke 13y ago
  > A quick look at the about box of various software will usually show you a long list of mandatory acknowledgements for various open source licenses. You have mistaken what "advertizing clause" means. The GPL requires that the about box list the copyright holders, so that can't be the types of advertising at issue. No, the complaint is about: * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this * software must display the following acknowledgment: * "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project * for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)" If you have software which uses OpenSSL, and to promote it you send out a tweet, then the license requires you to include the above two lines in the tweet. In practice, a project might have 20 such advertising requirements. It gets boring. An advertising clause can be used as a weapon. Suppose I distribute "free" software to you, but require you to include a 100 page manifesto every time you make an advertisement. Is that really "free"?
  - hyc_symas 13y ago
    Not quite. If you tweet and brag about SSL or crypto support, then you must credit OpenSSL. If you brag about something that is not a feature derived from/dependent on OpenSSL, then the clause is irrelevant.
    - dalke 13y ago
      So corrected. If my project is "SecureTalk" with the tag line "the NSA will never know", and it's secure because of OpenSSL, then will I have to mention that text every time I use the word "SecureTalk" in a tweet/ advertisement? What about "HushTalk"? "MumsTheWord"? "SafeBanking"? If I add optional rot-13 encryption, so there are now two cryptosystems, then can I pretend that SecureTalk doesn't "really" require OpenSSL, so I don't need the advertising?
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    "If you have software which uses OpenSSL, and to promote it you send out a tweet, then the license requires you to include the above two lines in the tweet. " No. If you have software that uses OpenSSL, and to promote it you send out a tweet that says "Use our product instead of our competitors, We use SSL to make things secure", then you must include the above two lines For the clause to apply 1. It has to be an advertisement 2. It has to advertise the features that use openssl
- caf 13y ago
  The problem is that the GPL willingly refuses to permit advertizing clauses. Is there a congent argument about why an advertizing clause is a limitation of freedom? The GPL doesn't specifically set out to prevent advertising clauses. It is a side-effect of being incompatible with "other restrictions" - for example, a requirement that you license some third party software or patent in order to redistribute GPL-covered code. Instead of trying to specifically enumerate and disallow all such restrictions that someone might come up with, which is a fool's errand, the GPL disallows any other restrictions.
  - dalke 13y ago
    > the GPL disallows any other restrictions As a minor quibble, section 7 of GPLv3 allows a few other restrictions. That is, there's a general blacklist, as you say, with a specific whitelist of what additional restrictions are allowed. For example, "b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it;"
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  Well, GPL is far from the most free license anyway (that would probably be the WTFPL, MIT license, or 2-clause BSD license). GPL is arguably a restrictive license, albeit not one that seeks to prevent copying.
maxlybbert 13y ago
I believe the OpenSSL team uses the 4 clause BSD license because they rely on SSLeay, which uses the 4 clause license. And if they have to advertise the SSLeay name, they might as well advertise the OpenSSL name as well. The thing is, relicensing isn't likely to happen any time soon, regardless of what RMS says.
- bbanyc 13y ago
  To be precise, SSLeay was discontinued when its authors were hired by RSA. They're now under non-competes and couldn't change the license if they wanted to.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    Noncompetes are generally illegal and get thrown out if it ever goes to court, although I understand why people don't want the hassle.
  - anon4 13y ago
    How would a noncompete agreement stop them from relicensing a work they did before signing the agreement?

pierrebai 13y ago

The reason the GPL is annoying is that free license with an advertizing clause have existed for a very long time and are actually widely used. A quick look at the about box of various software will usually show you a long list of mandatory acknowledgements for various open source licenses. The problem is that the GPL willingly refuses to permit advertizing clauses. Is there a congent argument about why an advertizing clause is a limitation of freedom? The GPL is more often than other free licenses putting restirctions on usage of diversely licensed software. It is an impediment. And, as we see, it has real-world consequences. There is more risk for freedom using bad software security than wielding to innocuous clauses.

chimeracoder 13y ago
> The problem is that the GPL willingly refuses to permit advertizing clauses. Is there a congent argument about why an advertizing clause is a limitation of freedom The advertising clause is not a limitation on freedom. The 4-clause BSD license is a free software license; it just happens not to be compatible with the GPL (not all free software licenses are). The reasons for this are very practical: not only does it place additional restrictions on the software (which is not permitted by the GPL), but if multiple 4-clause BSD projects are used, each project requires its own separate advertising statement (the 4-clause license does not permit combining these into a single sentence): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html > The reason the GPL is annoying is that free license with an advertizing clause have existed for a very long time and are actually widely used. Most modern projects using permissive licenses use 3-clause BSD, MIT/X11, or Apache, all of which are compatible with the GPL. In this day and age, choosing a 4-clause BSD license is a fairly conscious decision to make the project incompatible with the GPL.
- justin66 13y ago
  > In this day and age, choosing a 4-clause BSD license is a fairly conscious decision to make the project incompatible with the GPL. Complaining about this seems a bit strange, since GPL is deliberately incompatible with everything else when it comes to sharing. OpenSSL's license, although kooky, is freer than the GPL in terms of who can use the stuff covered by it.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    > Complaining about this seems a bit strange, For the record, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that it's unfair to blame the incompatibility solely on the GPL (as OP seemed to be), when the developer is the one who chooses the license for their software. (And I presume the OpenSSL authors are experienced enough to be familiar with the compatibility differences between the 3-clause vs. 4-clause BSD license). > OpenSSL's license, although kooky, is freer than the GPL in terms of who can use the stuff covered by it. No, both are equally free. Both of them respect the four freedoms, so they are both free licenses. (The 4-clause BSD is arguably more permissive, but on the other hand, the GPL permits one to advertise the software without any restrictions, so it really depends on which of those two one values more. Generally the copyleft clause is what people care about more than advertising, but it's important to note both).
- hyc_symas 13y ago
  Choosing the 4-clause BSD license is a conscious decision to continue to receive credit for all your hard work, when a proprietary software company comes along and includes your code in their product. To me this is a fair compromise for proprietary companies who refuse to open up their source code (i.e., would never touch GPL at all).
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    As I mention in a reply to the sibling comment, I don't fault the developer for choosing a free software license that suits their purposes. I just don't think it's fair to blame the GPL for the incompatibility that happens when a developer chooses a 4-clause BSD license. (Also, remember that the developer could always dual-license - ie, "GPL or 4-clause BSD - if you want to use my software in proprietary code, then you have to advertise me").
dalke 13y ago
> A quick look at the about box of various software will usually show you a long list of mandatory acknowledgements for various open source licenses. You have mistaken what "advertizing clause" means. The GPL requires that the about box list the copyright holders, so that can't be the types of advertising at issue. No, the complaint is about: * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this * software must display the following acknowledgment: * "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project * for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)" If you have software which uses OpenSSL, and to promote it you send out a tweet, then the license requires you to include the above two lines in the tweet. In practice, a project might have 20 such advertising requirements. It gets boring. An advertising clause can be used as a weapon. Suppose I distribute "free" software to you, but require you to include a 100 page manifesto every time you make an advertisement. Is that really "free"?
- hyc_symas 13y ago
  Not quite. If you tweet and brag about SSL or crypto support, then you must credit OpenSSL. If you brag about something that is not a feature derived from/dependent on OpenSSL, then the clause is irrelevant.
  - dalke 13y ago
    So corrected. If my project is "SecureTalk" with the tag line "the NSA will never know", and it's secure because of OpenSSL, then will I have to mention that text every time I use the word "SecureTalk" in a tweet/ advertisement? What about "HushTalk"? "MumsTheWord"? "SafeBanking"? If I add optional rot-13 encryption, so there are now two cryptosystems, then can I pretend that SecureTalk doesn't "really" require OpenSSL, so I don't need the advertising?
- DannyBee 13y ago
  "If you have software which uses OpenSSL, and to promote it you send out a tweet, then the license requires you to include the above two lines in the tweet. " No. If you have software that uses OpenSSL, and to promote it you send out a tweet that says "Use our product instead of our competitors, We use SSL to make things secure", then you must include the above two lines For the clause to apply 1. It has to be an advertisement 2. It has to advertise the features that use openssl
caf 13y ago
The problem is that the GPL willingly refuses to permit advertizing clauses. Is there a congent argument about why an advertizing clause is a limitation of freedom? The GPL doesn't specifically set out to prevent advertising clauses. It is a side-effect of being incompatible with "other restrictions" - for example, a requirement that you license some third party software or patent in order to redistribute GPL-covered code. Instead of trying to specifically enumerate and disallow all such restrictions that someone might come up with, which is a fool's errand, the GPL disallows any other restrictions.
- dalke 13y ago
  > the GPL disallows any other restrictions As a minor quibble, section 7 of GPLv3 allows a few other restrictions. That is, there's a general blacklist, as you say, with a specific whitelist of what additional restrictions are allowed. For example, "b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it;"
blueskin_ 13y ago
Well, GPL is far from the most free license anyway (that would probably be the WTFPL, MIT license, or 2-clause BSD license). GPL is arguably a restrictive license, albeit not one that seeks to prevent copying.

maxlybbert 13y ago

I believe the OpenSSL team uses the 4 clause BSD license because they rely on SSLeay, which uses the 4 clause license. And if they have to advertise the SSLeay name, they might as well advertise the OpenSSL name as well. The thing is, relicensing isn't likely to happen any time soon, regardless of what RMS says.

bbanyc 13y ago
To be precise, SSLeay was discontinued when its authors were hired by RSA. They're now under non-competes and couldn't change the license if they wanted to.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  Noncompetes are generally illegal and get thrown out if it ever goes to court, although I understand why people don't want the hassle.
- anon4 13y ago
  How would a noncompete agreement stop them from relicensing a work they did before signing the agreement?