Hi Jeroen, Thank you for considering the license and venturing to improve OpenBSD base, NSD in this case. The preferred license template is modeled after the ISC license, and 2-clause BSD close behind.
License policy: ISC or BSD only https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html ISC license template: https://www.openbsd.org/policy.htmlhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD Some of the tools I depend on are licensed Apache/GPL, etc, but not in OpenBSD base. Hope that helps. https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 3:20 PM, Stuart Henderson <stu.li...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > Hi Jeroen, > > On 2022-11-07, Jeroen Koekkoek <jer...@koekkoek.nl> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I'm working on some patches/features for NSD. One of the new features >> uses some Apache 2.0 licensed code (for now). >> >> Sorry to ask this question, but just to verify: >> >> * OpenBSD-base cannot include any software licensed under Apache 2.0. >> * Software in the ports collection is allowed to be licensed under >> Apache 2.0. > > Right. > >> If my assumptions are correct, and since NSD is in base, the dependency >> on the Apache 2.0 licensed code is therefore better removed or, >> alternatively, relicensed under a BSD-compatible license, right? > > If this will add Apache-licensed code to NSD itself we can't take it. > (It may be an issue for other users too - in some cases they will then > have to think more about patent law when they decide whether to use > the software). > > If it's in an external dependency (say, some NSD feature uses some > external Apache-licensed library, but that feature is optional, > and the NSD code which makes use of it follows the standard LICENSE > from the NSD distribution) then we can just disable the option. > > -- > Please keep replies on the mailing list.
