4 ms·

One annoying thing about OpenSSL is its license. I hope The Better Replacement™ fixes that as well (especially if its name gets to contain the string "Libre"),

One annoying thing about OpenSSL is its license. I hope The Better Replacement™ fixes that as well (especially if its name gets to contain the string "Libre"), and it is not going to happen by forking OpenSSL.

the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
Just don't link it with GPL stuff and you're fine.
Sanddancer 13y ago
This is the problem with any sort of viral license in Free/Open/Libre software. Different people have different notions as to the best way of distributing it. An advertising clause is pretty minor compared to the rights you have to give away to use certain other "Libre" software.
claudius 13y ago
They are already placing completely rewritten files under ‘better’ licenses, so the license switch might happen file-by-file over a long period of time.
- gioele 13y ago
  Is that strategy possible at all? Are there cases tested in courts (both US and EU) that assert that the file-by-file licence replacement really works?
  - mehrdada 13y ago
    Why wouldn't it? The author of the file will be the copyright holder by the virtue of authoring it. If she does not get rid of it, she still remains the copyright holder. Copyright does not switch owners purely by the virtue of distribution with another piece of work. IANAL.
    - gioele 13y ago
      But isn't the ISC file a "derivate work" of the Apache 1.0 and thus subject to the same limits?
      - mehrdada 13y ago
        The copyright holders can later on relicense the work under something else. Licensing a work under some non-exclusive license does not restrict you from licensing it again in the future under other terms.
legulere 13y ago
They use ISC for new files they add: http://freshbsd.org/commit/openbsd/4e62360b677d95b324fe5f0e1cbb631a53c82760 http://freshbsd.org/commit/openbsd/4e62360b677d95b324fe5f0e1...
edwintorok 13y ago
How about projects that currently have an 'OpenSSL exception' in their license. Will they need a LibreSSL exception in their license too now?

the_mitsuhiko 13y ago

Just don't link it with GPL stuff and you're fine.

Sanddancer 13y ago

This is the problem with any sort of viral license in Free/Open/Libre software. Different people have different notions as to the best way of distributing it. An advertising clause is pretty minor compared to the rights you have to give away to use certain other "Libre" software.

claudius 13y ago

They are already placing completely rewritten files under ‘better’ licenses, so the license switch might happen file-by-file over a long period of time.

gioele 13y ago
Is that strategy possible at all? Are there cases tested in courts (both US and EU) that assert that the file-by-file licence replacement really works?
- mehrdada 13y ago
  Why wouldn't it? The author of the file will be the copyright holder by the virtue of authoring it. If she does not get rid of it, she still remains the copyright holder. Copyright does not switch owners purely by the virtue of distribution with another piece of work. IANAL.
  - gioele 13y ago
    But isn't the ISC file a "derivate work" of the Apache 1.0 and thus subject to the same limits?
    - mehrdada 13y ago
      The copyright holders can later on relicense the work under something else. Licensing a work under some non-exclusive license does not restrict you from licensing it again in the future under other terms.

legulere 13y ago

They use ISC for new files they add: http://freshbsd.org/commit/openbsd/4e62360b677d95b324fe5f0e1cbb631a53c82760 http://freshbsd.org/commit/openbsd/4e62360b677d95b324fe5f0e1...

edwintorok 13y ago

How about projects that currently have an 'OpenSSL exception' in their license. Will they need a LibreSSL exception in their license too now?