If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comment