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

[Quanah Gibson-Mount]

--On Saturday, November 21, 2015 8:24 PM +0100 Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx.be> 
wrote:
>> 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.

That's an interesting take I've not encountered.  Our legal office has us 
elect specifically which license we will be using when pulling in software 
with multiple licenses.

For example:

>>> amqp-client-3.5.0

This package, the RabbitMQ Java client library, is triple-licensed under
the Mozilla Public License 1.1 ("MPL"), the GNU General Public License
version 2 ("GPL") and the Apache License version 2 ("ASL"). For the MPL,
please see LICENSE-MPL-RabbitMQ. For the GPL, please see LICENSE-GPL2.
For the ASL, please see LICENSE-APACHE2.

[PLEASE NOTE:  ZIMBRA, INC. ELECTS TO USE AND DISTRIBUTE THIS COMPONENT 
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE Apache License, V2.0.  PLEASE SEE THE APPENDIX TO 
REVIEW THE FULL TEXT OF ASL 2.0. THE ORIGINAL LICENSE TERMS ARE REPRODUCED 
BELOW ONLY AS A REFERENCE]

(etc).

Since you already cannot mix GPLv2 and GPLv3, then those who need openssl 
for GPLv2 reasons could elect to choose the MPLv2, and those who need 
openssl for GLPv3 reasons could elect to choose the APLv2.


--Quanah


--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration