On 28/11/18 21:41, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Wed 2018-11-28 19:54:34 +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote: >> On 28/11/18 17:02, Matt Caswell wrote: >>> Please see the following blog post about OpenSSL Versioning and License: >>> >>> https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2018/11/28/version/ >> >> :-( >> >> The Apache license is incompatible with GPLv2: >> >> https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html >> >> Those of us using GPLv2 code in products will no longer be able to use >> OpenSSL. For many of us, GPLv3 is not an option. > > The existing OpenSSL license is arguably incompatible with GPLv2 anyway, > in some analyses: > > https://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html Yes I believe any GPLv2 users have been relying on a license exception. I'm not sure the license exception in the GPL software I'm using would be sufficient if calls to OpenSSL are made from the GPL'd code: "As a special exception, if other files instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it with other works to produce a work based on this file, this file does not by itself cause the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public License.[...]" If my own (non-GPL) code calls OpenSSL, that seems fine. But what if I have modified the GPL'd (with exception) code to call OpenSSL? > That said, I also would have liked something that is GPLv2-compatible in > addition to GPLv3-compatible. Yes, that would have made things unambiguous. Jifl -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
