The issue with 3.4.24 / 3.4.10 is that Efraim reverted the commit then it was briefly discussed on IRC and Efraim thought I was right about the licensing being fine on 3.4.24 and reverted their revert commit, after some actual checking in the tarball grepping for license headers I found out I was wrong and instead of reverting the revert of the revert of Efraim the next change was removal because of other reasons.
Besides the openssl issue I think the commit message laid out these things quite well.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
