
When licenses attack - twampss
http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2009/jul/14/licensing/
======
jmillikin
_Now, suppose your application also needs to do SSL. Python has a module for
that, but what happens if you use it? Well, now you’re also interfacing with
OpenSSL, which has a viral advertising clause in its license._

He's not the first to notice the OpenSSL license issue[1], but luckily there
is a very easy solution -- the GNUTLS[2] library is available under a less
poisonous license, and has Python bindings[3].

[1] [http://blog.pierlux.com/2009/05/12/pythons-hidden-
poissoned-...](http://blog.pierlux.com/2009/05/12/pythons-hidden-poissoned-
apple-for-gpl-applications/en/)

[2] <http://www.gnu.org/software/gnutls/>

[3] <http://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-gnutls>

------
billpg
How coume the GPL is so anti-attribution anyway? What would be so wrong if it
(GPL) had a requirement for anyone distributing code to maintain any
attribution left behind by others?

So I'd have to keep a Help/About with a long list of names. Big whoop.

~~~
cdr
No doubt there's someone much more knowledgeable than me, but GPLv2 wasn't
specifically anti-attribution, but anti-any-additional-requirements. GPLv3
specifically allows some limited forms of attribution.

