On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 12:02:22PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Saturday, November 21, 2015 8:24 PM +0100 Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> > wrote: > >>So the MPLv2 is compatible with the APLv2. The MPLv2 is compatible with > >>the GPLv2 and the APLv2 is copmatible with GPLv3. The MPLv2 has patent > >>language along the same lines as the APLv2. I haven't looked into it > >>and I am not a lawyer, but would it be possible to dual license via the > >>MPLv2 and the APLv2? If so, that would keep the patent protections and > >>allow both GPLv2 and GPLv3 compatibility. > > > >I think the answer to that is complicated. The safest way to look > >at this, at what most people seem to be doing, is that if it all > >ends up in 1 "program", all licenses must be complied with at the > >same time and so must be compatible. > > That's an interesting take I've not encountered. Our legal office has us > elect specifically which license we will be using when pulling in software > with multiple licenses.
I think there was a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. If you have software A with license B or C, and software D makes use of that with license E or F. If that in turn makes use of G with license H or I, you will need to find a combination of (B || C) && (E || F) && (H || I) where you have 3 license that are compatible, not just 2 from (B || C) && (E || F), and then 2 from (E || F) && (H || I). I hope that makes it more clear. Kurt _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev