On 18/03/10 at 23:31 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Lucas Nussbaum
> <lucas / lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
> > OpenSSL doesn't have a lot of fans, because of its licence that prevents
> > it from being linked to GPL software. Yes, it could be possible to ship
> > openssl.so and readline.so in the same package, but then it would be
> > harder to argue that Debian does enough to protect the linking of
> > readline (GPLv2) with openssl. The situation would be much simpler if
> > Ruby switched to GNU TLS, for example.
> 
> Your first sentence is incorrect; OpenSSL is both better known and
> more widely used in the real world than GNU TLS is likely to ever be.
> GNU TLS is preferred by people who have subscribed to the GNU
> philosophy, which doesn't include everyone in the Ruby world, and
> those of us who prefer OpenSSL see GNU TLS as a zany outlier created
> by people who have nothing better to do with their time than to worry
> about the attribution clause (I believe that's the part that makes GNU
> software incompatible with OpenSSL licensing, since GNU believes that
> attribution isn't necessary).
> 
> That said, if someone were to make an SSL/TLS layer for Ruby that
> could reasonably replace the OpenSSL namespace and that both "require
> 'openssl'" and "require 'gnutls'" would satisfy, then I think we'd see
> traction. Since this is apparently a problem for people who prefer GNU
> TLS, I suggest that it is in their interest to do so.

Note that your lawyer might disagree with you, whether he is a GNU
fanboy or not, because it is widely agreed that the OpenSSL license is
incompatible with the GPL.

I agree that this sucks, but hey, that's life.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas / lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas / nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |