Re: The SSL license offer.

["David H. Lynch Jr." <dhlii@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Guillaume Filion wrote:

> "Ryan Malayter" <rmalayter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
>
> > Very interesting. If OpenSSL can be included in Linux distributions, why
> > can't SenderID?
> >
> > The SSL license would seem to have tproblems with the GPL similar to
> > those that the SenderID license does.
> >    
   The SSL license probably is incompatible with the GPL. But that does 
not make it incompatible with all FOSS licenses.
Also every piece of software included in a Linux distribution does not 
meet the Free Software Foundations criteria, that does not
prevent it from being included. Some distributions such as Debian 
distinguish between free and non-free  - incompatible license terms.
The OpenSSL license would probably qualify it as non-free but 
redistributable. The Microsoft License would prevent redistribution.

   The GPL is the most popular OpenSource License. However it is not 
the only one.

   Finally, we - not even the lawyers, do not get to decide whether the 
Microsoft license is incompatible with whatever License a particular 
developer is using
That developer does, or the distributor. Basically the people who are 
taking the risk by developing and distributing software  get to decide 
based hopefully on the advice
 they receive from THEIR lawyers, whether they have a problem. If 
Phillip Hazel, or the developers of Courier, ... believe they have a 
problem, you can try to persuade them otherwise
but you can not just tell them that they are wrong.