lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8


From: David Woolley
Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV SSL for Lynx 2.8
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:06:19 +0000 (GMT)

> That's right - the tar.gz, tar.Z, and full archive .zip (not just the
> patch files) contain buildssl.com and libmakessl.com.  I didn't set it up
> to overwrite or patch up the existing build.com or libmake.com - although
> I could add this with ease.  Hmm...

I would advise distributing just patches.  I think it can be argued that
you own the IPR in the patches, and can license them as you see fit, but
that the patched source is a derived work and covered by the original
GPL, with no countries excluded.  The other thing I would avoid is bundling
the patches with the original source.

> expert on the GPL, though...although if the GPL is being too restrictive, 
> maybe it's time to distribute Lynx under a different license agreement.)

The same people who could change the licence terms could also issue it
under alternative licence terms, so you could have a GPLed version, with
all the relevant protections but no problem content and an alternative
SSL version for non-commercial use only, or, ignoring export controls,
a non-USA/France version which contained the SSLeay implementation of
RSA, or even provide the SSL free version with two alternative GPLs,
one permitting use in the USA, which effectively wouldn't allow RSA
to be added, and one denying use in the USA, which would allow SSLeay,
but not RSAREF, to be added.

Creating only an SSL version would not be desirable as the US version would
not be useable for any business purposes, e.g. validating Lynx compatibility
of commercial web sites, and the international version wouldn't be useable
in the USA.

However the problem is that Lynx doesn't have a single copyright owner.
The current copyright statement is about right, the previous one confused
the licence with the owner.  As such you are going to have to identify all
the copyright owners and get their permission or remove their code.

Note, in particular, that the GPL conflict, in terms of use in the USA,
is not with the export controls, but with the RSA patent.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]