[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Libressl
From: |
Andreas Enge |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Libressl |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Jul 2015 22:26:11 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:16:06PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> The license you pasted is the original SSLeay License, whereas
> <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpenSSL> says:
> The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one of them
> being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. [...]
>
> However, I see now that this is a bit confusing, and we made a mistake
> in our 'license' field of our OpenSSL package. My casual reading of the
> above text led me believe that the "OpenSSL License" is itself a
> conjunction of the two licenses, but I see that
> <http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:OpenSSL> does not include the
> SSLeay license.
>
> So, I think we should add 'ssleay' to (guix licenses) and then add it to
> the license field of 'openssl' along with a comment explaining that the
> requirements of both (all?) licenses must be followed.
So this looks essentially like a bug in
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpenSSL
Would you like to report it (where?)?
Then it would be good if the SSLeay license could be added as
org/wiki/License:...
before we add it to our license collection.
Andreas