rlm_sqlippool IPR

[Alan DeKok]

Paul TBBle Hampson <Paul.Hampson at Pobox.com> wrote:
> And then this introduces another module that must be considered in
> granting an OpenSSL exception to the GPL,

  THAT I don't see a problem with.  Their module doesn't like to
OpenSSL, so their opinion is irrelevant.

  The EAP code links to OpenSSL, as does the server core.  So the
people with copyright on EAP and the server core need to make
statements about linking to OpenSSL.  Personally, I'm OK with it.

> as Globe.net may not wish to grant such an exception, and I again
> can't be bothered to look up to see if we can derive a work from GPL
> code and license it under GPL + OpenSSL exception without the
> copyright holder relicensing it.

  We can't.  But their opinion doesn't matter.

> (I'm not saying Asterisk does it better, or worse. Just mentioning
> what they do to deal with this problem.)

  Sure.  Personally, I dislike asking people to assign copyright.  But
asking people to explicitly license their code under the GPL is a good
idea.

  Alan DeKok.