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 Mon, 28 Nov 2016 21:08:32 GMT
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Umm... where are we including OpenSSL??
>
> > On Nov 28, 2016, at 12:10 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > Since 'OpenSSL+RSA license' is not in any way part of
> > this discussion, I have no idea what you are referring
> > to.
> >
> > If you have a specific question, then please ask.
> >
> > Twofold;
> >
> > 1. OpenSSL/SSLeay exception is not documented at
> >    https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved (unlike JSON)
> >    So the general question of when any exception that exists today
> >    for these licenses are subject to future reversal is unclear.
> >
> > 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.)
>

Most any binary that a committer would build of tc-native or httpd,
or anything else really, given that few 'mainstream' distributions yet
include a ALPN-ready flavor of OpenSSL.

If we are prohibited from including OpenSSL in any ASF convenience
binary of ASF software, that too would be useful to know.

Mime
View raw message