[Chicken-users] Re: OpenSSL license (Was: Things I forgot)

[Anthony Carrico]

On 9 Aug 2002, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Peter Keller <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Yes, but if the goal (and I have no idea of Felix's goal) is to
> distribute a system that is purely BSD licensed, well, GMP isn't, and
> the OpenSSL bignum library (which has all sorts of neat things in it)
> is.

I remember hearing that OpenSSL is not modified BSD, so I just took a
look. I couldn't find a link to the OpenSSL license at the OpenSSL web
page, but according to the top level page (http://www.openssl.org/):

"The OpenSSL toolkit is licensed under an Apache-style licence, which
basically means that you are free to get and use it for commercial and
non-commercial purposes subject to some simple license conditions."

I suspect this has to do with the code base that it descended from. It is
worth noting that Apache License (1.1 and 1.0) are incompatible with the
GNU GPL. This is from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html:

"We urge you not to use the Apache licenses for software you write.
However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been
released under this license, such as Apache."

Perhaps the bignum library has a different license than OpenSSL? Something
to keep in mind anyway.

  -Tony Carrico