On 24 March 2017 at 02:26, Quanah Gibson-Mount <qua...@symas.com> wrote:
> --On Friday, March 24, 2017 1:37 AM +0000 Peter Waltenberg < > pwal...@au1.ibm.com> wrote: > > >> OpenSSL has a LOT of commercial users and contributors. Apache2 they can >> live with, GPL not so much. >> There's also the point that many of the big consumers (like Apache :)) >> are also under Apache2. >> >> Least possible breakage and I think it's a reasonable compromise. Of >> course I am biased because I work for the one of the commercial users. >> > > Zero people that I know of are saying to switch to the GPL. What is being > pointed out is that the incompatibility with the current OpenSSL license > with the GPLv2 has been a major problem. Switching to the APLv2 does > nothing to resolve that problem. As has been noted, the current > advertising is a huge problem with the existing license. One of the > reasons that has been a big problem is that it makes the license > incompatible with the GPLv2. So on the one hand, getting rid of that > clause is great. On the other hand, getting rid of it by switching to the > APL is not great, because it doesn't resolve the fundamental problem of > being incompatible with the GPLv2. > > As was noted back when this was brought up in 2015, there are other, > better, licenses than the APLv2 which are also GPLv2 compatible. The MPLv2 > being an example of such a license. There is also BSD, MIT/X11, etc. The > GPLv2 incompatibility of OpenSSL is a major problem. Indeed, I don't think GPL2 itself would be a good choice. Cheers Rich.
-- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev