On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:18:40AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Friday, March 24, 2017 6:12 PM +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rs...@akamai.com> > wrote: > > > > Thanks Rich, that's a more useful starting point. Has dual licensing > > > been considered? Both in 2015 and now, the lack of GPLv2 compatibility > > > has shown to be a serious drawback to the APLv2. > > > > Dual licensing means that it is also available under a > > no-patent-protection license which is an issue for us. > > APLv2 and MPLv2 both have patent protections. How would a dual license of > APL+MPL result in a no-patent-protection license?
As far as I understand the MPLv2 is only compatible with the GPLv2 in a very specific case which makes it not useful for people that would actually want to link their application with it. Kurt -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev