> > The start suggests they want to privately collect sufficient consensus > > to pass their agenda. They appear to be considering all actions in > > the tree (including mine) on equal grounds. > > I already sent them a clear "NO, i explicitly object to relicensing > any of my contributions." > > If any of you care about the possibility of merging future OpenSSL > improvements to LibreSSL and OpenBSD, i suggest you do the same. > > Similarly, if any of you dislike publishing their own code under Apache 2.
There has been no discussion amongst the greater community of developers as to which license to take. Apache 2 has come as an edict from Rich Salz. There has also been no statement from the original authorship that this is the way to go. I suspect there is a lack of approval from some, and manufacturing consent in volume is the approach being taken. Apparently lawyers are being paid to help them push this through. Is that being paid for by donations people gave after Heartbleed? Is this why people donated?