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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project >
_______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list [email protected] https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
