4 ms·
Yes, see https://marc.info/?t=149028609000002&r=1&w=2 https://marc.info/?t=149028609000002&r=1&w=2 for some context. One of the other comments summarised why th
by ecma 10y ago
Yes, see https://marc.info/?t=149028609000002&r=1&w=2 https://marc.info/?t=149028609000002&r=1&w=2 for some context. One of the other comments summarised why this is funny.
- rurban 10y agoOnly very few find this funny. This is no joke. This is a serious death treat towards LibreSSL. Theo reacted with a satire. But not a funny one.
- geofft 10y agoWhat prevents LibreSSL from being under an Apache 2.0-compatible license? (Also, what prevents LibreSSL from replying with "This is great, but can we get dual MIT/Apache 2.0"?)
- rurban 10y agoDual licensing seems to be the best solution, yes. The license specialists need to come up with a solution. I'm not one
- ecma 10y agoPretty uncharitable read of what I meant by "funny" really. Satire can be amusing without invalidating the referenced issue. Don't get so hung up on the issue that you can't laugh about things too.