4 ms·

The context is that OpenSSL decided to re-license and sent an email saying "send an email if you object" to everyone. Theo De Raadt understandably objects stron

The context is that OpenSSL decided to re-license and sent an email saying "send an email if you object" to everyone. Theo De Raadt understandably objects strongly to this, and is parodying it by declaring intent to relicense GCC in the same way. Also, he's contacting gcc devs by emailing tech@openbsd.org. The entire point is that it's NOT a high enough bar.

flukus 10y ago
Thanks, thought I'd missed something.
ajross 10y ago
Maybe not, but... Is it wrong that I really don't care? The OpenSSL license is a historical disaster, and Apache 2.0 is just infinitely preferable. Everyone is up in arms about the principle of the thing, but can't we just agree to fix the license? Does anyone not want this?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- slimsag 10y ago
  That's the point: Does anyone _not_ want this? A group of people can't just get together and decide to 'change' the license of something when they are not the owner of said thing. In this case, contributions to OpenSSL. You're welcome to "want" OpenSSL to be under MyFavoriteLicense but at the end of the day when you use it and lawyers come after you because someone's contribution _wasn't under MyFavoriteLicense_, it's your fault.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- gizmo686 10y ago
  This could be a problem for paranoid downstream users, who do not know which license they are required to comply with. This could also be a problem if anyone ever tries enforcing the license, as the defendant could argue that it is covered by whichever license you are not claiming to enforce.
- rossy 10y ago
  > Does anyone not want this? Like the parent comment says, Theo De Raadt doesn't want this, nor do any other OpenBSD or LibreSSL devs, because Apache 2.0 licensed software can't be included in OpenBSD. If this license change goes through, LibreSSL will no longer be able to merge patches from OpenSSL. I understand that a lot of people want OpenSSL to be relicensed. I think everyone wants it to be relicensed, but Apache 2.0 is a weird choice of license. Whoever chose Apache 2.0 must not have put much thought into it, otherwise they would have known about the OpenBSD compatibility problem. It's also worth mentioning that Apache 2.0 is incompatible with the GPLv2. Apache 2.0 code can only be linked to GPLv2 code that includes the option to use the code under the terms of any later version of the license, which means the resulting linked binary must be distributed under the terms of the GPLv3. Proponents of GPLv2 over GPLv3 (such as Linus Torvalds) would also not want this.

flukus 10y ago

Thanks, thought I'd missed something.

ajross 10y ago

Maybe not, but... Is it wrong that I really don't care? The OpenSSL license is a historical disaster, and Apache 2.0 is just infinitely preferable. Everyone is up in arms about the principle of the thing, but can't we just agree to fix the license? Does anyone not want this?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
slimsag 10y ago
That's the point: Does anyone _not_ want this? A group of people can't just get together and decide to 'change' the license of something when they are not the owner of said thing. In this case, contributions to OpenSSL. You're welcome to "want" OpenSSL to be under MyFavoriteLicense but at the end of the day when you use it and lawyers come after you because someone's contribution _wasn't under MyFavoriteLicense_, it's your fault.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
gizmo686 10y ago
This could be a problem for paranoid downstream users, who do not know which license they are required to comply with. This could also be a problem if anyone ever tries enforcing the license, as the defendant could argue that it is covered by whichever license you are not claiming to enforce.
rossy 10y ago
> Does anyone not want this? Like the parent comment says, Theo De Raadt doesn't want this, nor do any other OpenBSD or LibreSSL devs, because Apache 2.0 licensed software can't be included in OpenBSD. If this license change goes through, LibreSSL will no longer be able to merge patches from OpenSSL. I understand that a lot of people want OpenSSL to be relicensed. I think everyone wants it to be relicensed, but Apache 2.0 is a weird choice of license. Whoever chose Apache 2.0 must not have put much thought into it, otherwise they would have known about the OpenBSD compatibility problem. It's also worth mentioning that Apache 2.0 is incompatible with the GPLv2. Apache 2.0 code can only be linked to GPLv2 code that includes the option to use the code under the terms of any later version of the license, which means the resulting linked binary must be distributed under the terms of the GPLv3. Proponents of GPLv2 over GPLv3 (such as Linus Torvalds) would also not want this.