Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status
I would add that the OpenSSL folks have stated that they currently intend to relicense, but have unfortunately tentatively decided on yet another GPLv2 incompatible license. I have asked them to reconsider using the UPL, the MIT license, or some other permissive GPLv2 compatible license, but as yet this has not gotten traction.
I have also been working on a Universal FOSS Exception (of which the FSF, SFLC and others are aware) which may better facilitate your use case and which the NTRU folks might consider adopting for this purpose - if anyone is interested they can ping me off-list.
> On Feb 27, 2016, at 4:30 AM, Ian Jackson <email@example.com> wrote:
> Paul Wise writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent status"):
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Are there any parts of Tor which currently have GPL-incompatible
>>> licences ? (Hopefully not.)
>> Tor uses OpenSSL.
> Well, then to use NTRU Tor would have to rely on the "FOSS Exception"
> which seems to have been rather poorly worded.
> I think this is probably fixable since it seems that the "FOSS
> Exception" is probably intended to allow this, but as written I think
> it has some problems.
> The FSF have published a short guide for how to write a GPL exception:
> That would seem to be readily applicable to what NTRU want to do.
> Perhaps NTRU could be persuaded to adopt that text, or something like