> On 24 Mar 2017, at 16:14, Quanah Gibson-Mount <qua...@symas.com> wrote: > > --On Friday, March 24, 2017 2:17 PM +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rs...@akamai.com> > wrote: > >>> 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. >> >> Better in one dimension, not in the multiple dimensions that we are >> concerned about. For example, one of the major things that is an issue >> for GPLv2 is the patent protection. Patent protection is important to >> us. At least now we're compatible with GPL3, which is hopefully seen as >> a major step forward. >> >> Yes, it is too bad we can't please all communities right now. > > Yes, you brought patent protection in 2015, and in 2015, I pointed out that > the MPLv2 also has patent protections, but here's a refresher: > > <http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0> > <http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPL_and_patents> > > The MPLv2 of course has the advantage of being compatible with both the GPLv2 > and the GPLv3, etc. I.e., it has much broader compatibility than the APLv2. > > In 2 years time, I've yet to see one valid argument to using the APLv2 vs the > MPLv2 originate from the OpenSSL team.
The two licenses are not identical. Specifically the MPL goes one step further with respect to the disclosure of the source code* -- The ASL stops just before that - and is more akin to the MIT and BSD licenses. >From personal experience - and given how OpenSSL is commonly used as one of >many small components in a larger work - that does make (my) live in the real >world a lot easer. Dw. *: (though not as far as the Free software licences; it limits it to the code under the MPL itself). -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
