I'm not sure the not title here is telling the whole story. It appears from reading the post that the developer who submitted the patch included code that Inte

I'm not sure the not title here is telling the whole story. It appears from reading the post that the developer who submitted the patch included code that Intel wrote for openssl, and it licensed under the Apache 2 license. Part of the Apache 2 license is that the existing copyright statements have to stay in place. Then the people commenting on the patch stated that they felt that the imposition of requiring that anyone using the library would need to include the Intel copyright statements would be too much [0]. It appears that someone asked Intel to relicense the code under the golang CLA. However, Intel declined to do that, which seems reasonable. Intel wrote the code, and owns the copyright on the code, asking for attribution (and again the code is released under the very lenient Apache 2 license) doesn't seem to be too much to ask. tl;dr Intel wrote some code and licensed it under Apache 2, but some people in the golang list don't like the attribution requirement (or having multiple licenses in the main codebase). They asked Intel to relicense it under the golang license and CLA, but Intel declined. [0] - "From my point of view, the issue with multiple different licenses is not the restrictions of the license (which I agree are minimal). It's the requirements on the end user. As far as I can tell, using the Intel code directly will require all people who distribute binaries written in Go to include a copy of the Intel copyright notice in their documentation, along with the Go copyright notice that they are already required to include. That is not an imposition to add lightly." https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=msg/golang-codereviews/m5QTnSUZU6c/5jwg9ES4jV8J#!msg/golang-codereviews/m5QTnSUZU6c/5jwg9ES4jV8J https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=msg/gola...