On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Josh Paetzel wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mike Miller wrote: > >> Is SSL non-free? I didn't know that. > > Yes, the FSF has been very aggressive about protecting the phrase Free > Software. They define it as software having GPL compatable licensing. > Which OpenSSL (really the only implimentation of SSL that matters) does > not have. Interesting. I found some info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSSL#Licensing It is a fairly trivial deviation from freeness, but it is a deviation. Stallman probably pursues it because he won't use non-free and he wants them to change the license. It is good code and he could use it! >> I would like to hear about that. I don't know what "reimplementations" >> means -- are Linux distros considered reimplementations? > > Linux itself is a reimplimentation of unix. Many of the GNU tools are > reimplimentations of tools that were freely available simply to have a > GPL licensed version. Hence gawk, gnu grep, gnu sed, so on and so > forth. You write that "FSF claims Free Software puts an end to reimplimenting things." When did FSF say that and why? That doesn't make sense to me. Can you document that they made that claim? > Historically on this list suggesting that RMS is anything other than > divinely inspired has been met with harsh criticism. That's interesting. I didn't know this list was like that. Usually I see more nastiness and anti-Stallman criticism than hero worship on every list where the topic of Stallman comes up. The other thing I see are claims about Stallman that are undocumented and often untrue. We are asked to rely on the impressions of the writer instead of being given direct quotations from Stallman and sources to document their origin. Mike