On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:48:58AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:11:48AM +0000, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL 
> wrote:
> > Apache license is fine for me, while GPL could be problematic. 
> > Incompatibility with GPLv2 is not a problem for us. 
> > 
> > If it is a problem for somebody - feel free to explain the details. Though 
> > I think the decision has been made, and the majority is OK with it. 
> I like to mention that any license change cannot be made based on a
> majority vote or any other method other than getting each author (or
> its legal representative) to *explicitly* allow the change. The method
> of "nothing heard equals consent" is not valid in any jurisdiction I
> know of.
> While I'm not a contributor (I think I only sent in a small diff years
> ago), I would like to stress that the planned relicensing procedure is
> not legal and can be challenged in court.

Well, emails were sent yesterday out to _all_ contributors for ack/deny the 

Ciao, Marcus
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev

Reply via email to