--On Friday, July 31, 2015 3:19 PM -0400 Brian Smith <br...@briansmith.org>
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Hanno Böck <ha...@hboeck.de> wrote:
"Salz, Rich" <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
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.
I agree 100%. What is wrong with the ISC-style license that LibreSSL and
BoringSSL have been using to share code? Why not use that same license
for new code? The ability to share code between these projects is hugely
valuable, especially when it comes to getting security problems fixed in
a timely and secure manner.
Also, I question the need for people to sign a CLA to contribute to
OpenSSL. OpenSSL has been very successful for decades without a CLA
requirement. Lots of other projects are extremely successful without a
CLA. A CLA seems unnecessary.
+1
It is curious as well that the openssl project did not solicit feedback
from it's community before announcing said license change to see what the
general consensus of the community is on the best path forward, and instead
is moving towards a significantly more restrictive license than what
OpenSSL was previously offered under.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
_______________________________________________
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
