On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:01:37PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Friday, November 20, 2015 9:47 PM +0100 Richard Levitte > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I would like to point out that the GNU project talks about the Apache > >v2 license in positive terms: > > > >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > > When dealing with the GPLv3, yes. However, it clearly notes the > incompatibility with the GPLv2. Moving to a license that does not resolve > the GPLv2 compatibility problem really doesn't help. I guess the > overwhelming feedback from the community that the new license really needs > to be GPLv2 compatible just went in one eye and out the other, so to speak.
I would like to point out that GPLv2 also isn't compatible with GPLv3, and that that is causing just as much problems as the current OpenSSL license. Both the GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 have protection for patents, which is why it's not compatible with the GPLv2. If you look at the above page, they recommand the Apache 2.0 license instead of the MIT license just because of that. We are in a field were people do claim patents. So the question is if this patent protection is important for us or not. Kurt _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
