> On 24 Mar 2017, at 16:14, Quanah Gibson-Mount <qua...@symas.com> wrote:
> --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.

The two licenses are not identical. 

Specifically the MPL goes one step further with respect to the disclosure of 
the source code* -- The ASL stops just before that - and is more akin to the 
MIT and BSD licenses.

>From personal experience - and given how OpenSSL is commonly used as one of 
>many small components in a larger work - that does make (my) live in the real 
>world a lot easer.


*: (though not as far as the Free software licences; it limits it to the code 
under the MPL itself).
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev

Reply via email to