2 ms·
Too bad they couldn't find a way to allow linking GPLv2 code with OpenSSL. As it stands every author has to add an OpenSSL exception to their licensing, which
by xorcist 8y ago
Too bad they couldn't find a way to allow linking GPLv2 code with OpenSSL.
As it stands every author has to add an OpenSSL exception to their licensing, which benefits nobody. It all seems a bit outdated and unnecessary.
I guess that means OpenBSD can't use OpenSSL going forward either? They have previously excluded Apache 2.0 licensed software.
- protomyth 8y agoI guess that means OpenBSD can't use OpenSSL going forward either? They have previously excluded Apache 2.0 licensed software. They've switched to LibreSSL in base, but Apache 2.0 is fine in ports. I guess it might affect adding patches from OpenSSL.
- loeg 8y agoThere's also some dispute over whether OpenSSL has the right to relicense all of its codebase to Apache 2.0; they didn't require a copyright transfer from individual authors and don't have 100% authorial consent.
- yellowapple 8y agoOpenBSD's already using LibreSSL (their OpenSSL fork in response to Heartbleed), so they're already not using OpenSSL. The license change at this point only means that further upstream work can't be ported back over to LibreSSL.