--On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 12:02 AM +0100 Matt Caswell
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/08/15 22:51, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
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.
In what way do you see it as more restrictive? That is not the intent.
1) Still incompatible with the GPLv1 & v2, which is still used by lots of
software products. This has been a long standing problem with the current
license, which is something I'd hope to see resolved, not made permanent.
2) Item 4, Section (b): You must cause any modified files to carry
prominent notices
stating that You changed the files; and
That bit is somewhat onerous, as many of us patch openssl frequently to
make up for years old bugs (Such as lack of IPv6 support...). Currently,
under the more open licensing style, I do not have to go through and make
prominent notices about modifications to the files. Not impossible to deal
with, but a pain.
I also don't get why a CLA is required, overall. I much prefer a simple
IPR if necessary, along the lines of:
<http://www.openldap.org/devel/contributing.html>
--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
