On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 06:33, rapier <rapier@xxxxxxx> wrote: > As neither license is viral it seems to me that they can play with each > other reasonably well. I know that the Apache license can exist with the > 2 and 3 clause BSD without a problem. I don't know if that's reciprocal > though. Can I ask what your concern is? > Patent clauses. From https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html: """ The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD. In particular, if you use code under the Apache 2 license, some of your rights will terminate if you claim in court that the code violates a patent. A license can only be considered fully permissive if it allows use by anyone for all the future without giving up any of their rights. If there are conditions that might terminate any rights in the future, or if you have to give up a right that you would otherwise have, even if exercising that right could reasonably be regarded as morally objectionable, the code is not free. In addition, the clause about the patent license is problematic because a patent license cannot be granted under Copyright law, but only under contract law, which drags the whole license into the domain of contract law. But while Copyright law is somewhat standardized by international agreements, contract law differs wildly among jurisdictions. So what the license means in different jurisdictions may vary and is hard to predict. """ -- Darren Tucker (dtucker at dtucker.net) GPG key 11EAA6FA / A86E 3E07 5B19 5880 E860 37F4 9357 ECEF 11EA A6FA (new) Good judgement comes with experience. Unfortunately, the experience usually comes from bad judgement. _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
