OpenSSL Planning To Relicense Its Code

[phoronix]

Phoronix: OpenSSL Planning To Relicense Its Code

The OpenSSL project is planning to change its software license...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...SL-Relicensing

[oibaf]

The new license still is incompatible with GPLv2: https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/op...ch/009176.html
However it is with GPLv3.

[AndyChow]

My heart skipped a beat reading the headline, but thankfully it's all good.

[anarki2]

The new license still is incompatible with GPLv2: https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/op...ch/009176.html
However it is with GPLv3.

Who cares about the General Stallman License? It's not like they want to build OpenSSL into the kernel or something.

[tegs]

Who cares about the General Stallman License? It's not like they want to build OpenSSL into the kernel or something.

Grow up

[microcode]

They had an opportunity to make a genuine improvement, like moving to ISC (which would allow further collaboration between the LibreSSL and OpenSSL folks). Instead, they chose a license which is incompatible with GPLv2. How do people manage to take a step backward on this?

[pouar]

They had an opportunity to make a genuine improvement, like moving to ISC (which would allow further collaboration between the LibreSSL and OpenSSL folks). Instead, they chose a license which is incompatible with GPLv2. How do people manage to take a step backward on this?

Isn't the original license also incompatible with the GPLv2? At least this new one adds GPLv3 compatibility.

[Joe S?rensen]

It is great news that OpenSSL now will be supported by the Linux Foundation Core Infrastructure Initiative.
And it is also a step in the right direction to have OpenSSL under a license people knows and trust.

[pal666]

Who cares about the General Stallman License? It's not like they want to build OpenSSL into the kernel or something.

imbecile, git is gplv2 and is linked to openssl

[chithanh]

The license change is apparently moving forward even without the consent of all rights holders.

If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you have no objection.

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149028593819547&w=2

Of course, Theo de Raadt is up in arms against this change, like he was when LLVM announced their move. But this time he seems to have actual leverage against relicensing the code.