[openssl-dev] License change agreement

[Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL]

I personally think this issue is being blown way out of proportion and beyond the boundary of reason. 

Regards,
Uri

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 05:07, Otto Moerbeek <otto at drijf.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:40:16AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:36:02AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:21:49AM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:48:58AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:11:48AM +0000, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apache license is fine for me, while GPL could be problematic. Incompatibility with GPLv2 is not a problem for us. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If it is a problem for somebody - feel free to explain the details. Though I think the decision has been made, and the majority is OK with it. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I like to mention that any license change cannot be made based on a
>>>>> majority vote or any other method other than getting each author (or
>>>>> its legal representative) to *explicitly* allow the change. The method
>>>>> of "nothing heard equals consent" is not valid in any jurisdiction I
>>>>> know of.
>>>>> 
>>>>> While I'm not a contributor (I think I only sent in a small diff years
>>>>> ago), I would like to stress that the planned relicensing procedure is
>>>>> not legal and can be challenged in court.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, emails were sent yesterday out to _all_ contributors for ack/deny the change.
>>> 
>>> Read the last line of the mail, it says the no reactions equals
>>> consent. That is the illegal part.
>> 
>> The legal advice we got said that we should do our best to contact
>> people. If we contacted them, they had the possibility to say no.
>> We will give them time and go over all people that didn't reply to
>> try to reach them.
>> 
>> But if they don't reply, as said, we will assume they have no
>> problem with the license change. If at some later point in time
>> they do come forward and say no, we will deal with that at that
>> time.
>> 
>> 
>> Kurt
> 
> Probably illegal and definitely immoral, in my opinion. Copyright law
> exists to protect authors from these kind of practises.
> 
>    -Otto
> -- 
> 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/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4223 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-dev/attachments/20170324/b68c6773/attachment-0001.bin>