Relicensing OpenSSL

Posted Mar 24, 2017 18:47 UTC (Fri) by imgx64 (guest, #78590)
In reply to: Relicensing OpenSSL by SEJeff
Parent article: Relicensing OpenSSL

But isn't the Apache License 2 incompatible with GPLv2? Why don't they relicense to MIT, ISC, or 2-clause BSD and end the whole OpenSSL license exception madness?

Patents

Posted Mar 24, 2017 20:29 UTC (Fri) by david.a.wheeler (subscriber, #72896) [Link] (5 responses)

They're choosing Apache 2, because worried about patents. Most GPL'ed software is "version 2 or later" so in many cases there isn't an incompatibility. Obvious exceptions: The Linux kernel and git.

Patents

Posted Mar 24, 2017 21:47 UTC (Fri) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] (2 responses)

A common solution to the patents issues is to dual-license under MIT + Apache2. The patent language in Apache2 is basically a restriction on authors, not on users, so this anyone who wants the patent guarantees can choose the Apache2 version and anyone who wants GPL-compatibility can choose the MIT version.

Patents

Posted Mar 25, 2017 10:52 UTC (Sat) by Conan_Kudo (subscriber, #103240) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm not sure that's so common. The only place I've ever seen that is in the Rust ecosystem. I don't know of anyone else doing that...

Patents

Posted Mar 26, 2017 6:54 UTC (Sun) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]

The most recent place I've seen it is in some core Python projects like cryptography and packaging.

I agree it's not common in absolute terms, but it is a common solution to the problem of wanting to have some patent protection with widely compatible licensing terms :-). And probably should be more common than it is; I think most people just haven't thought about it.

Patents

Posted Mar 26, 2017 7:34 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

If you modify a "GPLv2 or later" work to rely on ASL code, in a way that causes the "GPLv2 or later" work to become derived from the ASL code, then there is no way the resulting work can be distributed under the GPLv2 - the only way to satisfy the "GPLv2 or later" condition in such a case would be to distribute as v3.

So, yes, it's compatible, in a "you may be forced to upgrade to v3" kind of way.

Patents

Posted Mar 30, 2017 12:47 UTC (Thu) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link]

Another exception: MySQL's community release, which is GPLv2, period.

(Disclaimer. I work on MySQL.)

Relicensing OpenSSL

Posted Mar 26, 2017 0:56 UTC (Sun) by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404) [Link]

That's probably exactly why they did it. Given the change was partially brought to you by the Linux Foundation (first line in the announcement), which isn't exactly full of GPL supporters.