* James Bottomley: > On Sat, 2017-03-25 at 16:10 +0000, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev wrote: >> >> > Please, in the final OpenSSL license text add the paragraph linked >> > in the above LLVM mailing list as an exception to the Apache >> > license. >> > >> > We should make sure using OpenSSL in GPLv2-only projects its >> > possible without any trouble or concern for developers. >> >> The problem is that if it is distributed under the GPLv2 there is no >> patent protection, and that is important to us. > > I've already told you once that this is a factually incorrect statement > because (L)GPLv2 contains an implicit patent licence:
I think the fact that Richard rejects dual licensing indicates that it's not the lack of a licence that concerns him, but something else. He calls it “patent protection”; I assume he refers to the weak mutually assured destruction clause in the Apache license (the “If You institute patent litigation against any entity” part). I don't think the GPL, version 2, contains anything remote close to *that*, implied or otherwise. -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev