> 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 licen

> 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.