OpenSSL Planning To Relicense Its Code

[starshipeleven]

That's FUD and spin-doctored language. The GPL is hereditary, not viral.

It can bite on all sides, see below. You can't just throw it in the middle of proprietary stuff and don't care like with most permissive licenses (or even with LGPL to some extent).

This makes it a risk, as companies would need to check that an employee does not make mistakes in handling GPLed stuff and end up causing massive liabilities.

In a work with mixed ancestry, the GPL covers the individual GPLed pieces and the combination, but it doesn't flow backwards to infect the pieces under other licenses like MIT, Apache, or MPL... you can still pull those out of the combined work and use them under their original licenses.

True, but the main issue is that the combination (the software you ship) is GPLed and this authorizes the customer to ask (and receive) the full source of his application, so you must give him ALL stuff, which has now become GPLed and can be used and redistributed freely by him.

While this isn't an issue for permissive GPL-compatible licenses you mention (as GPL is a subset of the rights they gave to the user of such software and adds some requirements/limitations that aren't against the original license anyway), it is a BIG issue for proprietary licenses that get basically overridden and replaced with GPL.

Of course if you are shipping separate programs that communicate over standard interfaces this does not happen, but parts of the same software... become all GPL.

See here https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq...prietarySystem

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make. However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and nonfree programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
The difference between this and “incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

The reason companies like Samsung open up code that got mixed in with GPLed stuff is because it's the easier option than suddenly having all of their Linux-containing products (in the case of the exFAT driver being caught with Linux kernel code) being illegal to manufacture and distribute because their violation of the GPL triggered an automatic revocation of their license to use Linux.

Yeah, because adding blob drivers in most firmwares and release sources only whenever the fuck they feel like it doesn't also violate GPL.
I mean ok, what you say is true, but don't get too carried away as there are other things in real life too.
If they decided to keep it closed they (Samsung-sized company) would probably not get anything more than being shouted at.

They did it mostly for PR reasons, to not look too bad. After all, it's just a exFAT driver they probably made in-house so they could afford to code-drop it.

[ldo17]

... the main issue is that the combination (the software you ship) is GPLed

Only if the combination “would make them effectively a single program.” You quoted that very bit from the FSF.

[starshipeleven]

Makes you wonder why the Linux kernel developers are so determined to stick with GPLv2, rather than moving to GPLv3?

Apart from the fact that in many places there is no "GPLv2 and later" statement so you would need to call up the dev and ask him or rewrite that part, Torvalds is opposed to its anti-DRM provisions https://www.cnet.com/news/torvalds-no-gpl-3-for-linux/ as he wants to stay neutral on what you use Linux for:
"I really want a license to do just two things: Make the code available to others, and make sure that improvements stay that way. That's really it. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is fluff."

[starshipeleven]

Only if the combination “would make them effectively a single program.” You quoted that very bit from the FSF.

He is talking of a "single work with mixed ancestry", therefore I thought he was referring to a single program made of stuff with different licenses.

I discuss that part later and I also added bold myself to that sentence, so I kinda noticed that case too, thanks.