On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:21:49AM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> 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
Read the last line of the mail, it says the no reactions equals
consent. That is the illegal part.
-Otto
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
