[–] johannes1234321 10y ago ↗ > Our plan is to update the license to the Apache License version 2.0 (APLv2.0)).So no more OpenSSL for GPLv2 projects? [–] anarazel 10y ago ↗ That's not new unfortunately. The openssl license has always contained an advertising clause.The problem is often worked around in the basis of GPL's OS exception though. [–] the_why_of_y 10y ago ↗ The OpenSSL license is not compatible with GPLv2 or GPLv3 due to the obnoxious advertising clause.The ALv2 however is at least compatible with GPLv3, so it's clearly an improvement.
[–] anarazel 10y ago ↗ That's not new unfortunately. The openssl license has always contained an advertising clause.The problem is often worked around in the basis of GPL's OS exception though.
[–] the_why_of_y 10y ago ↗ The OpenSSL license is not compatible with GPLv2 or GPLv3 due to the obnoxious advertising clause.The ALv2 however is at least compatible with GPLv3, so it's clearly an improvement.
[–] anarazel 10y ago ↗ Finally! The current situation has caused a fair amount of grief. E.g. postgres not being able to link against libreadline and libedit (horribly buggy) instead being used.
5 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 26.8 ms ] threadSo no more OpenSSL for GPLv2 projects?
The problem is often worked around in the basis of GPL's OS exception though.
The ALv2 however is at least compatible with GPLv3, so it's clearly an improvement.