www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: OpenSSL exception documentation? [was: JSON License and Apache Projects]
Date Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:56:58 GMT
This seems most accurate by my reading, but will let it hang out there a
solid 72 hrs before resolving. Is a Jira ticket strictly necessary or can
the response be added to the FAQ doc based on this thread?

On Nov 28, 2016 12:38, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Luis Villa <luis@lu.is> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:10 AM William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 2. The primary objection/exception for OpenSSL/SSLeay would
> >>    appear to be the advertising clauses. However, SSLeay contains
> >>    a rather unique and tricky exception written with good intentions
> >>    (similar to 'good not evil')
> >>    https://www.openssl.org/source/license.txt
> >>
> >>  * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available
> version
> >> or
> >>  * derivative of this code cannot be changed.  i.e. this code cannot
> >> simply be
> >>  * copied and put under another distribution licence
> >>  * [including the GNU Public Licence.]
> >>
> >> This appears to make creation of a AL derived work near-impossible
> >> (focusing on the first sentence alone.)
> >
> > To be clear, the problem with the JSON license is that it discriminates
> > against particular types of use, which has never been acceptable in FOSS
> > licenses. The OpenSSL license is definitely poorly drafted, but it does
> not
> > discriminate in the same way.
> >
> > OpenSSL is either a mild copyleft (essentially FSF's interpretation,
> > suggesting Category B) or merely makes explicit what is implicit in all
> > permissive licenses, including Sec. 4 of the Apache license (suggesting
> > Category A). I'm not familiar enough with the (long) history here to
> really
> > know the author's intent, so I can't help categorize it into A/B/X, but
> in
> > either case, it isn't directly comparable to the JSON situation.
>
> I'd suggest category B.  Apache License is explicitly sublicenseable;
> openssl is explicitly NOT sublicenseable.
>
> One consequence of that is that the Apache License, version 2.0 is
> (one-way) compatible with GPL v3, but openssl is not.  That pretty
> much rules out category A.
>
> > Luis (IAALBIANYL)
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message