[openbeos] Re: Libraries

Matt Madia <mattmadia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:20:30 -0500, Michael Phipps
> <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > And this is a fairly ugly case...
> > 
> > OpenSSL is under an old style BSD license - requiring mention in 
> > whatever
> > eventual documentation comes about. This isn't necessarily so bad 
> > for us, but
> > the creeping feeling that I have is that we could have something of 
> > a licensing
> > issue for people who want to make distributions. Our code is all 
> > MIT. Other
> > code that we have in CVS is GPL, LGPL, etc. None of this is an 
> > issue for US, as
> > we have it set up so that anyone can get the source.
[...]
> > I think that OpenSSL should come into our tree, despite the 
> > licensing issue. It
> > was brought up to me before that it should come in, but at that 
> > point, it was
> > "just" feature creep. Now that it is necessary to support something 
> > basic that
> > R5 supports (email), I think that we should include it. For people 
> > to be unable
> > to read their email out of the box would be pretty tough to explain 
> > away...
> more likely than not, im underthinking this but:
> 
> What about automating this process?  
> [...]
> one final note, i understand that the exact implementation of this
> will most likely be different,  but what do you think of the overall
> idea ?

I think that this is overkill. I agree with Michael that we should 
include OpenSSL to our base distribution (as well as ssh if you ask 
me), but I don't see a lot of problems concerning the license.
Of course, we should mention it in our documentation, and probably in 
the about requester (of Haiku), as well, but I think a simple document 
in our tree that lists all of these copyright conditions should be 
enough.
If automated or not, we'd still have to check our documentation for 
correctness towards licenses and trademarks anyway - a broken 
automation is not that good as excuse :-)

Bye,
   Axel.

Other related posts: