[openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

[Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez]

On 23/03/17 21:04, Brian Smith wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm one of the people that received the email asking for permission to
> relicense code to the new license, Apache 2.0. 

Same here.

> A major problem with
> the Apache 2.0 license is that it is frequently seen as being
> incompatible with the GPL2 license. Although many people consider it
> to be compatible with the GPL3 license, many people also object to the
> GPL3 license for important (to them) reasons. Therefore, I think it is
> important for the OpenSSL license to be compatible with GPL2 too.
> 
> In the past, I created a library licensed under Apache 2.0,
> mozilla::pkix. However, Red Hat and Mozilla requested that I
> additionally license it under the GPLv2 so they could use it in
> GPLv2-licensed contexts, and I did so.
> 
> Similarly, LLVM is working on moving to the Apache 2.0 license and
> they ran into similar problems. They also made the effort to
> explicitly grant the right to use the relicensed code under the GPLv2.
> See [1] for details.
> 
> I think it is important that OpenSSL do something similar to
> explicitly allow using OpenSSL code under the GPLv2 before any
> relicensing takes place.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration.
> 
> [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html
> 
> Cheers,
> Brian
> 

I explicitly support this request.

Please, in the final OpenSSL license text add the paragraph linked in
the above LLVM mailing list as an exception to the Apache license.

We should make sure using OpenSSL in GPLv2-only projects its possible
without any trouble or concern for developers.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 883 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-dev/attachments/20170325/242143df/attachment.sig>