<font size=2 face="sans-serif">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.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Chris<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Alex Blewitt via swift-server-dev
<swift-server-dev@swift.org></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Joy Keys <proyb7@gmail.com></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">swift-server-dev@swift.org</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">24/03/2017 10:54</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [swift-server-dev]
OpenSSL re-licensesing to ASL v2</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Sent by:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">swift-server-dev-bounces@swift.org</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3>On 24 Mar 2017, at 02:03, Joy Keys via swift-server-dev
<</font><a href="mailto:swift-server-dev@swift.org"><font size=3 color=blue><u>swift-server-dev@swift.org</u></font></a><font size=3>>
wrote:</font>
<br>
<br><a href=https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2017/03/20/license/><font size=3 color=blue><u>https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2017/03/20/license/</u></font></a>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Since ASL v2 is incompatible with GPL2, some projects
may seek to use dual license MIT/ASL v2.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>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.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>See also Theo's trolling of relicensing GCC to ISC:</font>
<br>
<br><a href="https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149032069130072"><font size=3 color=blue><u>https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149032069130072</u></font></a>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Alex</font>
<br><tt><font size=2>_______________________________________________<br>
swift-server-dev mailing list<br>
swift-server-dev@swift.org<br>
</font></tt><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-server-dev"><tt><font size=2>https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-server-dev</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. <br>
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU<br>
</font>