Re: [openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

2017-03-26 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--On Saturday, March 25, 2017 6:16 PM -0400 Theodore Ts'o wrote: And indeed, different Linux distributions have already come to different conclusions with respect to various license compatibility issues. (Examples: dynamically linking GPL programs with OpenSSL libraries under

Re: [openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

2017-03-25 Thread James Bottomley
On Sat, 2017-03-25 at 21:48 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * James Bottomley: > > > On Sat, 2017-03-25 at 16:10 +, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev > > wrote: > > > > > > > Please, in the final OpenSSL license text add the paragraph > > > > linked in the above LLVM mailing list as an exception

Re: [openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

2017-03-25 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 07:47:23PM +0100, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > Unfortunately, dynamically linking is not a solution. > > My understanding is that the GPLv2 considers any library used by the > GPLv2 program (it doesn't make a difference between dynamic or static > linking) part of

Re: [openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

2017-03-25 Thread Salz, Rich via openssl-dev
> > The problem is that if it is distributed under the GPLv2 there is no > > patent protection, and that is important to us. > > I've already told you once that this is a factually incorrect statement > because > (L)GPLv2 contains an implicit patent licence: By patent protection, I mean "you

Re: [openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

2017-03-25 Thread Florian Weimer
* James Bottomley: > On Sat, 2017-03-25 at 16:10 +, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev wrote: >> >> > Please, in the final OpenSSL license text add the paragraph linked >> > in the above LLVM mailing list as an exception to the Apache >> > license. >> > >> > We should make sure using OpenSSL in

Re: [openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

2017-03-25 Thread James Bottomley
On Sat, 2017-03-25 at 16:10 +, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev wrote: > > > Please, in the final OpenSSL license text add the paragraph linked > > in the above LLVM mailing list as an exception to the Apache > > license. > > > > We should make sure using OpenSSL in GPLv2-only projects its > >

Re: [openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

2017-03-25 Thread Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
On 25/03/17 17:10, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev wrote: > >> Please, in the final OpenSSL license text add the paragraph linked in the >> above LLVM mailing list as an exception to the Apache license. >> >> We should make sure using OpenSSL in GPLv2-only projects its possible >> without any trouble

Re: [openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

2017-03-25 Thread Salz, Rich via openssl-dev
> Please, in the final OpenSSL license text add the paragraph linked in the > above LLVM mailing list as an exception to the Apache license. > > We should make sure using OpenSSL in GPLv2-only projects its possible > without any trouble or concern for developers. The problem is that if it is

Re: [openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

2017-03-25 Thread Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
On 23/03/17 21:04, Brian Smith wrote: > Hi, > > I'm one of the people that received the email asking for permission to > relicense code to the new license, Apache 2.0. Same here. > A major problem with > the Apache 2.0 license is that it is frequently seen as being > incompatible with the GPL2

[openssl-dev] The new OpenSSL license should be made GPLv2 compatible

2017-03-23 Thread Brian Smith
Hi, I'm one of the people that received the email asking for permission to relicense code to the new license, Apache 2.0. A major problem with the Apache 2.0 license is that it is frequently seen as being incompatible with the GPL2 license. Although many people consider it to be compatible with