This discussion has been taken to the OMC mailing list (where it continues)
rather than the openssl-project list as it goes across previous team
decisions.
An update once that discussion completes will be sent to the
openssl-project list.

Thanks,
Tim.


On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:

> For some background you can take a look at https://github.com/openssl/
> openssl/pull/5499 and the blog posts here: https://www.openssl.org/blog/
> blog/categories/license/
>
>
>
> The OMC voted in 2014 to work to an eventual change of license to Apache
> 2. That led to the CLA’s. We had calls with various open source folks who
> we thought could help us. This include Max Sills from the Google open
> source office, Gervais Markham who led the Mozilla relicensing effort,
> someone from GitHub (to talk about CLA automation), and probably another
> person who I am forgetting.  We also talked with our legal counsel, Mishi
> Choudhary of the Software Freedom Law Center.
>
>
>
> Around 2Q 3Q 2015 the discussions were completed, and we had coalesced
> around a plan. There was no formal OMC vote (it was called the openssl-team
> at that point). But there were no objections.  OMC members can skim the
> archives, starting around July 2015 if they need to refresh their memories.
>
>
>
> The key points of the plan are
>
>    - Move to Apache license
>    - Require CLA’s from all contributors
>    - Reach out to everyone we can identify and get them to approve of the
>    change, or not
>    - Have a uniform copyright in all source files that points to the
>    license and authors separately, for easier maintenance
>
>
>
> The “removing some code” blog post gives more details about the scripts we
> developed and what code we removed. Since then, nobody else has asked for
> their code to be removed.
>
>
>
> The file/copyright changes happened during the 1.1.0 release.
>
>
>
> We’re on the verge of being able to change the license, and as we said in
> our last press release, we are hoping and planning to do that for 1.1.1
>
>
>
> The PR that marks part of this has a -1 from Tim, which is a hold.  That
> means we have to discuss and the OMC vote on this.  This email is intended
> to give the background and start the discussion.
>
>
>
> So what are your objections Tim, and what do you want to see done
> differently? And also, please explain why it is better than the current
> plan.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openssl-project mailing list
> openssl-project@openssl.org
> https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
>
_______________________________________________
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project

Reply via email to