On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:43:17AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Friday, March 24, 2017 7:47 PM +0100 Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> > wrote: > > > 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. > > Reference? I certainly don't see that in > <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/>
Then I suggest you read that FAQ again. Kurt -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
