On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 at 21:14 Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > 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). >
Well, now you put it that way, I have to disagree. Let's say: A and D are compatible because B and E are. D and G are compatible because F and H are. G and A are compatible because I and C are. Who has been harmed here?
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev