Also, did the advice you got explicitly state "'the' CLA as opposed to other possible licenses such as MIT, BSD, LGPL, etc."? Were any reasons provided that you may be able to share?
(I've dealt with lawyers in the past, and this seems weird.) Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. Original Message From: Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 09:20 To: Matt Caswell; openssl-dev@openssl.org Reply To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] We're working on license changes How about getting a second opinion? Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. Original Message From: Matt Caswell Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 03:56 To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Reply To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] We're working on license changes On 04/08/15 00:37, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > I also don't get why a CLA is required, overall. It's not something I'm thrilled about either. However we have been receiving legal advice. That advice tells us that we should be putting in place a CLA. Matt _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
