Hi, On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:37:30 +0000 "Salz, Rich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please see https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/08/01/cla/ for some > more details. > > Summary: Moving to Apache 2, CLA's coming, it will take time. This is a huge step if it works (I leave it up to the lawyers to decide if it will), but I want to question whether Apache License is really a wise move. AFAIK there has been work done to make the apache license compatible with the GPL, both with changes in the APache license and the GPL, but this only applies to the GPL 3. Whether one likes that or not, there is still a lot of GPL2-only code out there and that's unlikely to change because for some projects it's close to impossible to change the license due to the number of contributors. Just to give a very concrete example: Apache 2 licensing would mean that the linux kernel could not take code from OpenSSL. In the spirit of making OpenSSL as useful as possible for everyone I would consider a permissive license that's more compatible (e.g. MIT) a wiser choice. -- Hanno Böck http://hboeck.de/ mail/jabber: [email protected] GPG: BBB51E42
pgpRcb97ky2Ry.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
