Hacker News Reader

Comment by karavelov | Hacker News Reader

I have no experience with PolarSSL but it is under GPL so unless your code is under GPL also it is a no-starter. I suppose this is a major obstacle for wider adoption.

View on HN

They have a standard FOSS License Exception allowing you to use it with all the regular Open Source licenses..

Link: https://polarssl.org/foss-license-exception

PolarSSL forked from BSD-licensed XySSL (no longer maintained) in 2008.

It would make some sense to backtrack to the last BSD-licensed PolarSSL release and work from there.

There are some projects attempting to do so: https://gitorious.org/tropicssl

It depends. The GPL doesn't have an effect if your software is never distributed outside of your organisation e.g. if it's only ever used server-side.

Its dual-licensed, you can use their non-GPL licensed code

The other side of the license is commercial.

Which is normally not a problem if you're creating a commercial product. You can also get a license for FOSS projects if the GPL isn't suitable.

Oh so you want it for free? And without giving back your work to the public?

Oh.

Oh, yes.

Like all the code I've contributed with no reciprocation demanded.

Well then keep using those kind of licenses, and openssl, and we the others will gladly use GPL kind of licenses, and move to gnutls and/or polarssl.

This argument is old, BSD vs Linux old since the 1990s.

I guess you are using BSD kernels, runtimes and compilers on your phones and super-computers too?

Admittedly, OpenSSL's Apache license allows for that usage case, so it's technically a fair question when comparing alternatives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com