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