[openssl-dev] License change agreement
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...
More information about the openssl-dev