[nitrogen]

The GPL does require attribution. It was the advertising clause of the older BSD licenses (similar to the one used by OpenSSL) that was problematic for the GPL, because it imposed restrictions on activities not directly connected to the software. You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it.

[dragonwriter]

> You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it.

There is nothing in the GPL that requires preserving upstream copyright notices in downstream modified versions of software, or any other form of attribution of the origin of modified versions; it does require "appropriate copyright notice", but since copyright on a derived work rests with the creator of the derivative, the modifiers copyright would appear to suffice for that for modified works. The GPL explicitly prohibits attributing modified works to the creators of the upstream work (as it requires you to include notification of your modification and a relevant date).

[belorn]

provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty

Removing notices can be very dangerous, and should not be done without legal advice. The default way to include GPL is to also have an absence of warranty, which is explicitly required to keep intact in modified version.

[nitrogen]

Removing notices can be a crime subject to a fine: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506#d

[mkesper]

Copyright itself requires it.