Replacement for GMP: Update

[Peter Tanski]

Florian,

> This is the offending part:
>
>  * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this  
> software
>  *    must display the following acknowledgement:
>  *    "This product includes cryptographic software written by
>  *     Eric Young (eay at cryptsoft.com)"
>  *    The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from  
> the library
>  *    being used are not cryptographic related :-).
>
> It's generally believed that this is a further restriction in the
> sense of section 6 of the GPL (version 2).
>
>> In any case, I think it would be more of a restriction to someone
>> *using* the OpenSSL program, not a developer.
>
> It's a problem for a developer who wants to use a GPLed library
> written by someone else, too.

Quite right; my mistake: under the OpenSSL license a developer cannot  
mention features of the software in advertising materials, so the  
license grant of the GPL-OpenSSL program to the developer is void.   
The reason I mentioned "users" only was that in the particular  
problem we have here GHC does not use any other GPL programs (I think  
I am correct--readline is the unix version, not the GPL version,  
correct?) so until the developer compiles a Haskell program with GHC  
(with OpenSSL) *and* that program uses a GPL program, the Haskell  
developer is still able transfer a valid license to users.

The way the OpenSSL FAQ stated the problem, the implication was that  
there was specific mention of OpenSSL in a GPL license.  The  
advertising requirement in the OpenSSL license would certainly  
constitute a "further restriction" under GPLv2 section 6; the strange  
implication is that the "no further restriction" clause is so broad  
the same clause (verbatim) in section 10 of the LGPL means the GPL  
license is incompatible with the terms of the LGPL!  It's all very  
touchy.

Best regards,
Peter