Quoting Daniel Markstedt (2024-07-01 12:04:03) > On the licensing situation, so my understanding now is that *some* > permissive licenses can coexist with GPLv2 licensed code, such as > BSD-*, MIT, LGPL* etc. > However, SSLeay explicitly forbids redistribution under GPL, while GPL > explicitly says the entire software package has be distributed under > the GPL. > Does this sound about right?
Almost: It is GPL that forbids anti-freedoms in the SSLeay license. Free software licensing is all about freeing software from the slavery the monopoly-minded laws called "copyright". GPL contains wording to ensure that its promised freedoms are not hampered e.g. by additional licensing terms introducing through linked code: GPL will terminate, if combined with lesser free terms. Some perceive GPL as being a "viral" license due to this mechanism: GPL cannot be "watered down"; The combinatorial result of mixing licensing terms must be at least as free as GPL. Confusingly, OpenSSL v3 do not use the OpenSSL license, so reusing SSLeay-licensed code is legally different from linking with OpenSSL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OpenSSL > FWIW, I naively thought it was sufficient to retain the original licensing > blurb for each source file, and independently adhere to the licensing terms > for each. > But I see now how one license can impose its terms on other source files in > the same distribution... > > Anyhow, let's work towards a broader solution in the upstream issue ticket > that you raised. Yes, let's discuss those details upstream :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
