--On Friday, March 24, 2017 2:17 PM +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rs...@akamai.com>
wrote:
As was noted back when this was brought up in 2015, there are other,
better, licenses than the APLv2 which are also GPLv2 compatible. The
MPLv2 being an example of such a license. There is also BSD, MIT/X11,
etc. The GPLv2 incompatibility of OpenSSL is a major problem.
Better in one dimension, not in the multiple dimensions that we are
concerned about. For example, one of the major things that is an issue
for GPLv2 is the patent protection. Patent protection is important to
us. At least now we're compatible with GPL3, which is hopefully seen as
a major step forward.
Yes, it is too bad we can't please all communities right now.
Yes, you brought patent protection in 2015, and in 2015, I pointed out that
the MPLv2 also has patent protections, but here's a refresher:
<http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0>
<http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPL_and_patents>
The MPLv2 of course has the advantage of being compatible with both the
GPLv2 and the GPLv3, etc. I.e., it has much broader compatibility than the
APLv2.
In 2 years time, I've yet to see one valid argument to using the APLv2 vs
the MPLv2 originate from the OpenSSL team.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Product Architect
Symas Corporation
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP:
<http://www.symas.com>
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
