On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:13:55 +0300 Hleb Valoshka wrote: > On 8/1/15, Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org> wrote: > ... > > As a consequence, I can think of the following possible strategies to > > address this issue: > > > > A) persuade the OpenSSL copyright holders to switch to a sane 3-clause > > BSD license (which is GPL-compatible) > > The latest news [1] says that openssl is planning to switch to Apache > 2.0 license. So let's just wait a bit. > > > https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/08/01/cla/ Wow! This sounds like interesting news, thanks a lot for pointing this blog entry out to me! I would be even happier, if OpenSSL were planning to switch to the 3-clause BSD license (or to the Expat license, or to the zlib license, ...), since that move would also make OpenSSL GPLv2-compatible and not only GPLv3-compatible. But still, very interesting news! Thanks again for your reply. I wonder how long the re-licensing process will take... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpfqdEximPsN.pgp
Description: PGP signature