On Friday, 17 September 2021 08:41:08 PDT Andreas Cord-Landwehr wrote: > Yet no, it is not orthogonal IMHO, because our license list strives for > compatibility between the licenses in our code base. If we would say that > the GPL-2.0-only files are legacy/policy violation/or just deprecated, then > I find it hard to say that we disallow Apache 2 while allowing e.g. > BSD-2-Clause. My main argument would be that Apache 2 is fully compatible > with GPL-3.0 (at least in the regard when being integrated with GPL-3.0 > code) and in my understanding it falls into the license policy section > about "if it helps with compatibility".
I'm not arguing that. I actually agree with you: it is a good licence and chosen by many projects. I meant OpenSSL 3's licence choice is an orthogonal problem. Code that is GPLv2-only today will not become compatible with OpenSSL 3 just because we add a new option. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering