On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 at 22:39 Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:09:51PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 at 21:14 Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 12:02:22PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > > > > --On Saturday, November 21, 2015 8:24 PM +0100 Kurt Roeckx < > > > k...@roeckx.be> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>So the MPLv2 is compatible with the APLv2. The MPLv2 is compatible > > > with > > > > >>the GPLv2 and the APLv2 is copmatible with GPLv3. The MPLv2 has > patent > > > > >>language along the same lines as the APLv2. I haven't looked into > it > > > > >>and I am not a lawyer, but would it be possible to dual license > via the > > > > >>MPLv2 and the APLv2? If so, that would keep the patent > protections and > > > > >>allow both GPLv2 and GPLv3 compatibility. > > > > > > > > > >I think the answer to that is complicated. The safest way to look > > > > >at this, at what most people seem to be doing, is that if it all > > > > >ends up in 1 "program", all licenses must be complied with at the > > > > >same time and so must be compatible. > > > > > > > > That's an interesting take I've not encountered. Our legal office > has us > > > > elect specifically which license we will be using when pulling in > > > software > > > > with multiple licenses. > > > > > > I think there was a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. > > > If you have software A with license B or C, and software D makes > > > use of that with license E or F. If that in turn makes use of G > > > with license H or I, you will need to find a combination of > > > (B || C) && (E || F) && (H || I) where you have 3 license that are > > > compatible, not just 2 from (B || C) && (E || F), and then 2 from > > > (E || F) && (H || I). > > > > > > > Well, now you put it that way, I have to disagree. > > > > Let's say: > > > > A and D are compatible because B and E are. > > D and G are compatible because F and H are. > > G and A are compatible because I and C are. > > > > Who has been harmed here? > > Some people will argue that A is then covered by both B and C at > the same time and you need to comply with both,
Who is the "you" that needs to comply with both? All the complying has already been done. Only A, D and G need comply, and they do. > it's no longer an > option to use either B or C. The same goes for D being both E > and F, and G being both H and I. > > If you drop the last line, because there is no direct link between > A and G, you end up with just B, E, F and H you need to comply > with at the same time. But some will argue that that is not good > enough because they're all linked together. > > > Kurt > > _______________________________________________ > openssl-dev mailing list > To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev >
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev