I probably should have said this before, but by MPL2.0, I am referring to the Mozilla Public License 2.0.
Due to the fact that it is only copyleft on a file level, I assumed that there would be no need for an OpenSSL linking exception. The software will not use the optional "Incompatible With Secondary Licenses" option. On 15/03/14 08:50, Riley Baird wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to convince an upstream maintainer to add a GPL exception to > their program that links to OpenSSL. They have been cooperative, but > they don't want to have long license text in individual files. > > The MPL2.0 does not require such long text by itself, so I was thinking > of recommending that. > > However, I was unable to find out whether it would require an OpenSSL > exemption. Looking at the license, I don't think that one is needed, but > I'd just like to make sure. > > Thanks for helping! > > Riley Baird > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
