> Who is "us"? The openssl dev team.
> It is natural for a lawyer to tell you to require lots of things to protect > whatever entity is paying them. Well, yeah, sure. But I would hope that the bono-fides of the SFLC and Eben Moglen aren't being called into question. >For an example of this, see Mozilla, in particular see [1], particularly >sections 2, 3, and 4. See also [2] where Mozilla recently gave up the >requirement to have the agreement signed. Please let me know if you want me to >put you in touch with the licensing people at Mozilla who can probably help >you do the same. Sure, please contact me (rsalz at openssl.org) > To be clear, I don't have any problem with the OpenSSL Foundation being a > for-profit corporation. But, it does make for a very different situation than > how the Apache Software Foundation[3] or even Mozilla operates, and I think > that distinction is very important when it comes to licensing. Since Matt has explained that we're not a for-profit corporation, I assume that this is no longer a concern for you. We are *not* a tax-exempt charitable organization, but we are not for profit. _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
