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

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:07:36AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Saturday, November 21, 2015 12:50 PM +0100 Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx.be>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >I would like to point out that GPLv2 also isn't compatible with
> >GPLv3, and that that is causing just as much problems as the
> >current OpenSSL license.
> >
> >Both the GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 have protection for patents, which is
> >why it's not compatible with the GPLv2.  If you look at the above
> >page, they recommand the Apache 2.0 license instead of the MIT
> >license just because of that.
> >
> >We are in a field were people do claim patents.  So the question
> >is if this patent protection is important for us or not.
> 
> So the MPLv2 is compatible with the APLv2.  The MPLv2 is compatible with the
> GPLv2 and the APLv2 is copmatible with GPLv3.  The MPLv2 has patent language
> along the same lines as the APLv2.  I haven't looked into it and I am not a
> lawyer, but would it be possible to dual license via the MPLv2 and the
> APLv2?  If so, that would keep the patent protections and allow both GPLv2
> and GPLv3 compatibility.

I think the answer to that is complicated.  The safest way to look
at this, at what most people seem to be doing, is that if it all
ends up in 1 "program", all licenses must be complied with at the
same time and so must be compatible.


Kurt