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

[Ben Laurie]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 at 21:14 Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx.be> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 12:02:22PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > --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.
>
> I think there was a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say.
> If you have software A with license B or C, and software D makes
> use of that with license E or F.  If that in turn makes use of G
> with license H or I, you will need to find a combination of
> (B || C) && (E || F) && (H || I) where you have 3 license that are
> compatible, not just 2 from (B || C) && (E || F), and then 2 from
> (E || F) && (H || I).
>

Well, now you put it that way, I have to disagree.

Let's say:

 A and D are compatible because B and E are.
D and G are compatible because F and H are.
G and A are compatible because I and C are.

Who has been harmed here?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-dev/attachments/20151121/df09dab1/attachment.html>