Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On 24 Mar 2017, at 20:03, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Friday, March 24, 2017 12:30 PM -0700 James Bottomley > wrote: > > >>> Probably illegal and definitely immoral, in my opinion. Copyright law >>> exists to protect authors from

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Friday, March 24, 2017 1:49 PM -0700 James Bottomley wrote: On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 20:24 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:22:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > This is my understanding as well. From the GPL side, for both >

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 20:24 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:22:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > This is my understanding as well. From the GPL side, for both > > dynamic > > and static linking of openssl to GPLv2 code, the section 3 system > > exception applies.

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

* Kurt Roeckx: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:02:25PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Quanah Gibson-Mount: >> >> > Zero people that I know of are saying to switch to the GPL. What is >> > being pointed out is that the incompatibility with the current >> > OpenSSL license with the GPLv2 has been

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:22:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > This is my understanding as well. From the GPL side, for both dynamic > and static linking of openssl to GPLv2 code, the section 3 system > exception applies. Not everybody agrees that it applies. Kurt -- openssl-dev

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 20:02 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Quanah Gibson-Mount: > > > Zero people that I know of are saying to switch to the GPL. What > > is being pointed out is that the incompatibility with the current > > OpenSSL license with the GPLv2 has been a major problem. > > The

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:02:25PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Quanah Gibson-Mount: > > > Zero people that I know of are saying to switch to the GPL. What is > > being pointed out is that the incompatibility with the current > > OpenSSL license with the GPLv2 has been a major problem. > >

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 12:03 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Friday, March 24, 2017 12:30 PM -0700 James Bottomley > wrote: > > > > > Probably illegal and definitely immoral, in my opinion. Copyright > > > law > > > exists to protect authors from

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Friday, March 24, 2017 9:02 PM +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: * Quanah Gibson-Mount: Zero people that I know of are saying to switch to the GPL. What is being pointed out is that the incompatibility with the current OpenSSL license with the GPLv2 has been a major

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Friday, March 24, 2017 12:30 PM -0700 James Bottomley wrote: Probably illegal and definitely immoral, in my opinion. Copyright law exists to protect authors from these kind of practises. I think you misunderstand the legal situation. Provided

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

* Quanah Gibson-Mount: > Zero people that I know of are saying to switch to the GPL. What is > being pointed out is that the incompatibility with the current > OpenSSL license with the GPLv2 has been a major problem. The alleged incompatibility of OpenSSL with the GPLv2 has been used to promote

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

> It's not clear to me that that's correct. From > (See update), it appears you need an > explicit 95% permission rate to legally relicense and zero objections. So > far one objection has already surfaced. And code from people who object will most likely

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:43:17AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Friday, March 24, 2017 7:47 PM +0100 Kurt Roeckx > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:18:40AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > > > --On Friday, March 24, 2017 6:12 PM + "Salz, Rich"

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

> It doesn't mean the code is no longer covered by the MPL. See > , That is very complicated as can be seen by the multiple cases, all of which we would expect to apply to OpenSSL at one point or another. Our legal advice

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 13:17 +, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev 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,

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Friday, March 24, 2017 7:47 PM +0100 Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:18:40AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: --On Friday, March 24, 2017 6:12 PM + "Salz, Rich" wrote: > > Thanks Rich, that's a more useful starting point. Has dual

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Friday, March 24, 2017 6:30 PM + "Salz, Rich" wrote: > Dual licensing means that it is also available under a > no-patent-protection license which is an issue for us. APLv2 and MPLv2 both have patent protections. How would a dual license of APL+MPL result in a

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 10:06 +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:40:16AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:36:02AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:21:49AM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:18:40AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Friday, March 24, 2017 6:12 PM + "Salz, Rich" > wrote: > > > > Thanks Rich, that's a more useful starting point. Has dual licensing > > > been considered? Both in 2015 and now, the lack of GPLv2

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

> > Dual licensing means that it is also available under a > > no-patent-protection license which is an issue for us. > > APLv2 and MPLv2 both have patent protections. How would a dual license of > APL+MPL result in a no-patent-protection license? MPL allows GPL which has no patent protection.

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Friday, March 24, 2017 6:12 PM + "Salz, Rich" wrote: Thanks Rich, that's a more useful starting point. Has dual licensing been considered? Both in 2015 and now, the lack of GPLv2 compatibility has shown to be a serious drawback to the APLv2. Dual licensing means

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

> Thanks Rich, that's a more useful starting point. Has dual licensing been > considered? Both in 2015 and now, the lack of GPLv2 compatibility has > shown to be a serious drawback to the APLv2. Dual licensing means that it is also available under a no-patent-protection license which is an

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Friday, March 24, 2017 5:40 PM + "Salz, Rich" wrote: The required source code disclosures of the MPL are problematic. The fact that the MPL allows distribution under a non-patent-protecting license is problematic. Ok? Thanks Rich, that's a more useful starting

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

The required source code disclosures of the MPL are problematic. The fact that the MPL allows distribution under a non-patent-protecting license is problematic. Ok? -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Friday, March 24, 2017 6:00 PM +0100 Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: 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

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

> On 24 Mar 2017, at 16:14, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > > --On Friday, March 24, 2017 2:17 PM + "Salz, Rich" > wrote: > >>> As was noted back when this was brought up in 2015, there are other, >>> better, licenses than the APLv2 which are also GPLv2

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Friday, March 24, 2017 2:17 PM + "Salz, Rich" 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,

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

> On 24 Mar 2017, at 13:14, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL > wrote: > >> I personally think this issue is being blown way out of proportion and >> beyond the boundary of reason. >> >> Regards, >> Uri > > Is

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

> 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

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fr, Mär 24, 2017 at 01:29:53 +0100, Richard Levitte wrote: If I'm reading you correctly, *any* license change faces the exact same problem. My interpretation of what you say is that unless we can successfully reach all contributors, no exception, we're stuck with the current license,

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On 24 March 2017 at 02:26, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Friday, March 24, 2017 1:37 AM + Peter Waltenberg < > pwal...@au1.ibm.com> wrote: > > >> OpenSSL has a LOT of commercial users and contributors. Apache2 they can >> live with, GPL not so much. >> There's also the

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 01:29:53PM +0100, Richard Levitte wrote: > In message <20170324121435.gq70...@colo.drijf.net> on Fri, 24 Mar 2017 > 13:14:35 +0100, Otto Moerbeek said: > > otto> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - > MITLL wrote: > otto>

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

In message <20170324121435.gq70...@colo.drijf.net> on Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:14:35 +0100, Otto Moerbeek said: otto> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote: otto> otto> > I personally think this issue is being blown way out of proportion and

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote: > I personally think this issue is being blown way out of proportion and beyond > the boundary of reason. > > Regards, > Uri Is it reasonable to step on the rights of authors with the backing of large

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

I personally think this issue is being blown way out of proportion and beyond the boundary of reason. Regards, Uri Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 24, 2017, at 05:07, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:40:16AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Mar 24,

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:40:16AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:36:02AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:21:49AM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:48:58AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:36:02AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:21:49AM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:48:58AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:11:48AM +, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL > > > wrote: > > >

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:21:49AM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:48:58AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:11:48AM +, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL > > wrote: > > > > > Apache license is fine for me, while GPL could be problematic. > >

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:48:58AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:11:48AM +, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL > wrote: > > > Apache license is fine for me, while GPL could be problematic. > > Incompatibility with GPLv2 is not a problem for us. > > > > If it is a

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:11:48AM +, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote: > Apache license is fine for me, while GPL could be problematic. > Incompatibility with GPLv2 is not a problem for us. > > If it is a problem for somebody - feel free to explain the details. Though I > think the

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

Apache license is fine for me, while GPL could be problematic. Incompatibility with GPLv2 is not a problem for us. If it is a problem for somebody - feel free to explain the details. Though I think the decision has been made, and the majority is OK with it. Regards, Uri Sent from my iPhone

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Friday, March 24, 2017 1:37 AM + Peter Waltenberg wrote: OpenSSL has a LOT of commercial users and contributors. Apache2 they can live with, GPL not so much. There's also the point that many of the big consumers (like Apache :)) are also under Apache2. Least

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

OpenSSL has a LOT of commercial users and contributors. Apache2 they can live with, GPL not so much. There's also the point that many of the big consumers (like Apache :)) are also under Apache2. Least possible breakage and I think it's a reasonable compromise. Of course I am biased because I

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

On 23 March 2017 at 18:04, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev < openssl-dev@openssl.org> wrote: > > The new license also conflicts with the GPLv2. This was immediately > brought > > up as a serious problem when this discussion began in July of 2015. It > > appears that the feedback that the APL does

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

> The major problem with the existing license is that it conflicts with the > GPLv2. Well, it's one of the problems. The others includes that it is non-standard, and has an advertising clause. > The new license also conflicts with the GPLv2. This was immediately brought > up as a serious

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

--On Thursday, March 23, 2017 11:41 AM -0400 Rich Salz wrote: If you have contributed code to OpenSSL, we'd like you to take a look at our licensing website, https://license.openssl.org and give approval to our converting to the Apache Software License. You can find more

Re: [openssl-dev] License change agreement

I'm only a minor contributor. But as I regularly use OpenSSL in other projects, I wholeheartedly embrace this change. Thank you for the effort you are putting in to make this happen. On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Rich Salz wrote: > If you have contributed code to OpenSSL,