On 2/22/2016 2:12 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> My understanding on the first look is that the PHP license is flawed
> (tries to limit the usage of php in naming but that is a futile
> attempt without registering a trademark)
Your premise that registration is required before trademark rights
accrue
Do not give up hope, no change has yet occurred, and more voices calling
attention to the problematic consequences of this choice may yet change their
minds. :-)
> I have also repeatedly written to them in order to recommend the
> adoption of the 3-clause BSD license [2], the Expat license [3]
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/
I would add that the OpenSSL folks have stated that they currently intend to
relicense, but have unfortunately tentatively decided on yet another GPLv2
incompatible license. I have asked them to reconsider using the UPL, the MIT
license, or some other permissive GPLv2 compatible license, but as
Paul Wise writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"):
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Are there any parts of Tor which currently have GPL-incompatible
> > licences ? (Hopefully not.)
>
> Tor uses OpenSSL.
Bah.
Well, then to use NTRU Tor would hav
5 matches
Mail list logo
