Date:        Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:34:11 +0100
    From:        Chris Wareham <chris.wareham@iosystems.co.uk>
    Message-ID:  <3D904DB3.9050607@iosystems.co.uk>

  | Having read the OpenBSD mailing list thread, and filtered out the
  | ranting,

I have just been doing the same, since you pointed it out.   And it
is amusing to note that they scream at each other at least as much,
and as badly, as anyone here ever screamed at them (since I have been
on the NetBSD lists anyway - no comments on the time of the split).
And I've never seen anything similar, or close, between NetBSD users,
even with all the various "issues" that arise from time to time.

  | I noted the folowing:

Yes, your summary is about in line with what I detected from their
messages.   I was going to send something similar...  (and then add
my own comments, here, I'm not about to get involved with their
slang fests).

Note: my comments are about their views, as you reported them, not
about your reporting of them...

  | 1) Sun's license gives them a blanket indemnity to being sued,
  |     regardless of the reason (it could be wholly unrelated to
  |     the code in OpenSSL).

That's nonsense.   What it actually says is ...

 * Sun covenants to all licensees who provide a reciprocal
 * covenant with respect to their own patents if any, not to sue

That is, to get their covenant, you have to provied your own,
reciprocal covenant.   That applies only to "their own patents".

Not suing for any other reasons isn't mentioned anywhere (in fact,
not suing sun isn't mentioned anywhere - that's just what the
reciprocal covenant that needs to be granted to sun would involve).

  | 3) The Sun code modifies files written by the original author,
  |     and contravenes his license by imposing restrictions.

There are no licence restrictions added at all that I can see.

In fact, what it says is ...

 * The Contribution is licensed pursuant to the OpenSSL open source
 * license provided above.

and then

 * In addition, Sun covenants ...

That is, there are no restrictions at all added to the copyright licence.

But, you are being informed that sun holds patents that they claim cover
the algorithm involved here.   If you were to use it (regardless of the
copyright licence granted) then you'd be infringing their patent.   I don't
believe that they actually needed to tell you this at all, they could
have just allowed the code out, and then sued anyone who used it...

Instead of that, they promise not to sue you for infringing their patent,
using this particular code, if you also promise not to sue them.

That's an additional agreement, 100% unrelated to the copyright licence,
which is just the plain old untouched openssl version.

kre