"The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or derivative of this code cannot be changed. "That seems to me less midly copyleft and more either 1) a no sublicensing term or 2) a vague copyleft term that could be either GPL or MPL in its desired scope. #1 would seem to place it in its own special situation while #2 would place it in Cat X.
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" <email@example.com> wrote:On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Luis Villa <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:10 AM William A Rowe Jr <email@example.com>
>> 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')
>> * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version
>> * 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@apac
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org