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 20:06:22 GMT
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 01:37:58PM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Luis Villa <luis@lu.is> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Is GPLv3-compatibility meant to be a prerequisite for category A? I
> believe there are a number of licenses in category A that the FSF
> classifies as GPL-incompatible.
>

My 2c....

Painting the answer with a broad-brush, the ASF has never been directed
by the FSF's legal logic (going back 2 previous ASL and 1 GPL licenses.)
The FSF had clearly stated the AL 2.0 is incompatible with various GPL
flavors for patent clauses, as one example.

So, category A is defined by our metric of creating a combined work under
the AL 2.0. That isn't to say that the FSF hasn't raised interesting points
which we've given consideration to. But it isn't decisive input.

Mime
View raw message