tjh at openssl.org
Fri Jun 21 06:24:03 UTC 2019
Unfortunately, the issue isn't the compatibility of the license - they do
indeed look relatively compatible to me - and the discussion on this thread
has so far been about that.
However the contributor license agreement requires that the copyright owner
grants such permission - it is the fundamental basis of contributor
Both the CCLA and ICLA make that exceedingly clear the contributor
(individual or company) is "*the copyright owner or legal entity authorized
by the copyright owner*" and the grants in the CLA are not grants that the
notice in the RFC provide.
In this case, the person who raised the PR is unable to meet those
requirements (please do correct me if I am wrong on that) and as such their
contribution is unable to be accepted.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:12 PM Dr Paul Dale <paul.dale at oracle.com> wrote:
> It seems okay from here too.
> Dr Paul Dale | Cryptographer | Network Security & Encryption
> Phone +61 7 3031 7217
> Oracle Australia
> > On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:59 am, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk at mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 12:27:38PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 03:39:10PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> >>> PR 9199 incorporates the C punycode implementation from RFC3492:
> >>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9199
> >> I'd be comfortable with relicensing under Apache, while clearly
> >> indicating the provenance of the code, and indicating that the
> >> file is also available under the original terms.
> > Me, too.
> > -Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openssl-project