https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2017/03/20/license/
Since ASL v2 is incompatible with GPL2, some projects may seek to use dual
license MIT/ASL v2.
Vapor now supported OpenSSL.
It's unlikely that such a relicensing will be seen as valid, particularly because they've gone from the "If we don't hear of any objections then we'll assume that means yes". Relicensing of software is particularly challenging in that all contributors need to agree (not just to not disagree) for it to be valid. There have been few situations where open-source software relicensing has gone ahead successfully; other than projects which have CLAs (i.e. 'we give a license to relicense') the only ones that I'm aware of are JUnit and Eclipse, both of which moved from CPL to EPL. And in that particular case, the only way they achieved that was to denote EPL as being a subsequent version of CPL, because they couldn't get positive permission from everyone.
See also Theo's trolling of relicensing GCC to ISC:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149032069130072
Alex
···
On 24 Mar 2017, at 02:03, Joy Keys via swift-server-dev <swift-server-dev@swift.org> wrote:
https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2017/03/20/license/
Since ASL v2 is incompatible with GPL2, some projects may seek to use dual license MIT/ASL v2.
If they can carry this off, and the change can be seen as legally valid,
it makes adoption easier. Having said that, the OpenSSL license is already
fairly permissive - it just requires you to provide a PUT to cover its
inclusion in other projects.
Chris
···
From: Alex Blewitt via swift-server-dev <swift-server-dev@swift.org>
To: Joy Keys <proyb7@gmail.com>
Cc: swift-server-dev@swift.org
Date: 24/03/2017 10:54
Subject: Re: [swift-server-dev] OpenSSL re-licensesing to ASL v2
Sent by: swift-server-dev-bounces@swift.org
On 24 Mar 2017, at 02:03, Joy Keys via swift-server-dev < swift-server-dev@swift.org> wrote:
https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2017/03/20/license/
Since ASL v2 is incompatible with GPL2, some projects may seek to use dual
license MIT/ASL v2.
It's unlikely that such a relicensing will be seen as valid, particularly
because they've gone from the "If we don't hear of any objections then
we'll assume that means yes". Relicensing of software is particularly
challenging in that all contributors need to agree (not just to not
disagree) for it to be valid. There have been few situations where
open-source software relicensing has gone ahead successfully; other than
projects which have CLAs (i.e. 'we give a license to relicense') the only
ones that I'm aware of are JUnit and Eclipse, both of which moved from CPL
to EPL. And in that particular case, the only way they achieved that was
to denote EPL as being a subsequent version of CPL, because they couldn't
get positive permission from everyone.
See also Theo's trolling of relicensing GCC to ISC:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149032069130072
Alex
_______________________________________________
swift-server-dev mailing list
swift-server-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-server-dev
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU