Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebast...@breakpoint.cc> writes: > GPL software has an exception clause in order to link against OpenSSL > which has the advertising clause.
This appears to be a statement that any work licensed under GNU GPL has such an exception. That is not true, to my knowledge. > Clamav for instance has this piece: Right. That piece is not part of any version of the GPL; it is an additional clause in the grant for recipients of that specific work (ClamAV). So each work needs to be examined for its specific grant, to see what the full combination of effective license conditions are to the recipient of that specific work. > OpenSSL upstream now switched the license from BSD style to Apache > License 2.0. What can you cite for that change? The official OpenSSL site contradicts that claim. According to <URL:https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html>, OpenSSL is subject to the conditions of the terms of both OpenSSL License and, simultaneously, Original SSLEay License. Neither of these is Apache License 2.0. -- \ “I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as | `\ my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer | _o__) figure out how to use my telephone.” —Bjarne Stroustrup | Ben Finney
