4 ms·
Ah, I see, OpenSSL is licensed under "an Apache-style license"[1], so they can distribute patches under non-OSS licenses if they so desire. I thought it was a G
by Wowfunhappy 3y ago
Ah, I see, OpenSSL is licensed under "an Apache-style license"[1], so they can distribute patches under non-OSS licenses if they so desire. I thought it was a GPL-style viral license for some reason.
1: https://www.openssl.org/ https://www.openssl.org/
- yrro 3y agoThat applies to OpenSSL 3.0. 1.1.1 and other versions are more MIT-like, but with advertising clauses that make them incompatible with the GPL: https://www.openssl.org/source/license-openssl-ssleay.txt https://www.openssl.org/source/license-openssl-ssleay.txt https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13945492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13945492
- semiquaver 3y agoEven if OpenSSL were licensed under the GPL, nothing prevents the organization from releasing patches or separate distributions under a restrictive commercial license. They are the copyright holder. Viral open source licenses constrain _licensees_ to release derivative works under the same terms, but they can’t somehow destroy inherent ownership rights due to the copyright holder.
- Wowfunhappy 3y agoYes, but only if no one outside the organization has ever contributed code, or if everyone who did signed a CLA.
- semiquaver 3y agoI was going to add that OpenSSL does in fact have a strong CLA enforcement policy, as should anyone attempting to earn money from open source software. Of course you’re right, if the actual copyright ownership is in dispute then ownership rights associated with that ownership are difficult to invoke.