I personally think this issue is being blown way out of proportion and beyond the boundary of reason.
Regards, Uri Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 24, 2017, at 05:07, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:40:16AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:36:02AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Read the last line of the mail, it says the no reactions equals >>> consent. That is the illegal part. >> >> The legal advice we got said that we should do our best to contact >> people. If we contacted them, they had the possibility to say no. >> We will give them time and go over all people that didn't reply to >> try to reach them. >> >> But if they don't reply, as said, we will assume they have no >> problem with the license change. If at some later point in time >> they do come forward and say no, we will deal with that at that >> time. >> >> >> Kurt > > Probably illegal and definitely immoral, in my opinion. Copyright law > exists to protect authors from these kind of practises. > > -Otto > -- > 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
