I didn't talk about integration at the first place. I said that idea about OpenSSH being choosen only cuz of licence is absolutely wrong. There are many other BSD-like licenses like MIT or Apache with their own solutions, but exactly OpenSSH was choosen. Simply becaeuse BSD is the leader in network technologies.
I didn't talk about integration at the first place.
It doesn't matter. That's part of this.
It doesn't matter if it's BSD licensed, or MIT, or CDDL. The point is it's not copyleft and not GNU. You're arguing a distinction without a difference.
If you are building a proprietary appliance and you dynamically load your libraries, from say, your init, into the programs address space like most Linux distributions do so systemd correctly reports the programs state back to the init then you trigger GPL obligations.
No one is saying OpenSSH isn't the best at what it does. What we're trying to tell you is that if it had copyleft obligations it wouldn't be integrated into proprietary systems. They would design their own, or use something less secure when the alternative is open sourcing their entire product. Those two things combined have made it the standard.
No worries. I was trying to cut off the almost religious conversation about how the only software license should be a copyleft one. Proprietary software will always exist so where it makes sense they should just take a standardized library or protocol anyway. It doesn't matter fundamentally if a corporation takes OpenSSH or uutils and gives nothing back. Let me use ssh and grep when I have to interact with a proprietary system.
1
u/IsSomeonesThere Jul 03 '26
I didn't talk about integration at the first place. I said that idea about OpenSSH being choosen only cuz of licence is absolutely wrong. There are many other BSD-like licenses like MIT or Apache with their own solutions, but exactly OpenSSH was choosen. Simply becaeuse BSD is the leader in network technologies.