[openssl-dev] We're working on license changes

[Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL]

Also, did the advice you got explicitly state "'the' CLA as opposed to other possible licenses such as MIT, BSD, LGPL, etc."?‎ Were any reasons provided that you may be able to share?

(I've dealt with lawyers in the past, and this seems weird.)

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
  Original Message  
From: Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 09:20
To: Matt Caswell; openssl-dev at openssl.org
Reply To: openssl-dev at openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] We're working on license changes

How about getting a second opinion?

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
  Original Message  
From: Matt Caswell
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 03:56
To: openssl-dev at openssl.org
Reply To: openssl-dev at openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] We're working on license changes



On 04/08/15 00:37, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> I also don't get why a CLA is required, overall.

It's not something I'm thrilled about either. However we have been
receiving legal advice. That advice tells us that we should be putting
in place a CLA.

Matt

_______________________________________________
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-dev/attachments/20150804/d8d26307/attachment.bin>