> My only concern is its 'pure' GPLv2+ license — is that compatible with > with our 'GPLv2 or LGPLv3+' license. The answer that matters, as always, is that only a real lawyer can say. My own uninformed guess is that we would be considered a derivative of them (instead of vice versa) and thus we'd be OK as long as we had GPLv2 as a (not necessarily only) option. The thornier question is what would happen for a piece of code that was derivative of both. In that case it might need to be GPLv2 exactly to be redistributable with both, but - again - that's for the lawyers to say. > I'm not sure why the BSD-style OpenSSL license was an issue; perhaps > just the GPL compatibility due to what looks like a weak advertising > clause. In any event, it's license didn't pollute our code. Do we need > to have our attorney bless the change. We'd need to do that anyway, as we should with every incorporation of new code under new licenses. On the other hand, I'd be amazed if PolarSSL's license from the same family as ours was more problematic than OpenSSL's unique one. _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
