[openssl-dev] License change agreement

Richard Moore richmoore44 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 24 12:37:01 UTC 2017

On 24 March 2017 at 02:26, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah at symas.com> wrote:

> --On Friday, March 24, 2017 1:37 AM +0000 Peter Waltenberg <
> pwalten at au1.ibm.com> wrote:
>> OpenSSL has a LOT of commercial users and contributors. Apache2 they can
>> live with, GPL not so much.
>> There's also the point that many of the big consumers (like Apache :))
>> are also under Apache2.
>> Least possible breakage and I think it's a reasonable compromise. Of
>> course I am biased because I work for the one of the commercial users.
> Zero people that I know of are saying to switch to the GPL.  What is being
> pointed out is that the incompatibility with the current OpenSSL license
> with the GPLv2 has been a major problem.  Switching to the APLv2 does
> nothing to resolve that problem.  As has been noted, the current
> advertising is a huge problem with the existing license.  One of the
> reasons that has been a big problem is that it makes the license
> incompatible with the GPLv2.  So on the one hand, getting rid of that
> clause is great.  On the other hand, getting rid of it by switching to the
> APL is not great, because it doesn't resolve the fundamental problem of
> being incompatible with the GPLv2.
> As was noted back when this was brought up in 2015, there are other,
> better, licenses than the APLv2 which are also GPLv2 compatible.  The MPLv2
> being an example of such a license.  There is also BSD, MIT/X11, etc.  The
> GPLv2 incompatibility of OpenSSL is a major problem.

​Indeed, I don't think GPL2 itself would be a good choice.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-dev/attachments/20170324/7b057bdc/attachment.html>

More information about the openssl-dev mailing list