--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
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
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
> > 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
* 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
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
> >
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
> 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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo