On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:03:53 -0800 Jim Wright wrote: > I would add that the OpenSSL folks have stated that they currently > intend to relicense,
Yes, they stated this intention [1], but, after that, no further news came out, as far as I can tell. [1] https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/08/01/cla/ > but have unfortunately tentatively decided on yet another > GPLv2 incompatible license. Indeed, the Apache license v2.0 is GPLv3-compatible, but *not* GPLv2-compatible, unfortunately. Hence, it would only solve *some* of the countless incompatibility issues the current OpenSSL license has caused for more than 15 years. > I have asked them to reconsider using the UPL, the MIT license, > or some other permissive GPLv2 compatible license, but as yet > this has not gotten traction. I have also repeatedly written to them in order to recommend the adoption of the 3-clause BSD license [2], the Expat license [3], or the zlib license [4]. [2] https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause [3] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt [4] http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html I have never received any reply whatsoever... :-( -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpbyE6nHDPP1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
