On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Mikkel Krautz wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: >> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 03:28:30PM +0100, Mikkel Krautz wrote: >> >> A tiny bit of follow-up to my suggestion of using "-openssl-linked" for >> >> Qt: >> >> >> >> In the earlier Debian bug that was linked by Chris, it was brought up >> >> that an application may use QtNetwork without using SSL, and therefore >> >> might not be able to link against OpenSSL due to license >> >> incompatibilities: >> >> >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623596#94 >> > >> > OpenSSL will be changing it's license, so hopefully this won't be >> > a problem in the future. >> >> While I applaud the license change (I love it!), I don't think it >> comes without problems of its own. >> >> Last I heard, the chosen license was Apache 2 (per the blog post), so >> I obviously don't know if things have changed. >> >> The FSF considers the Apache 2 license incompatible with GPLv2, so >> there are still going to be issues, since it's inevitable that some >> software will stick to GPLv2 (like Linux). But the incompatibility >> seems to only apply to some situations: > > We are considering a GPLv2 exception, but I really have no details > about that yet. > >> I think it would have been better to align with BoringSSL and >> LibreSSL's ISC license instead to facilitate code sharing (patent >> grant is already explicitly spelled out in the CLAs). But perhaps >> there are good news coming on that front. :-) > > I have no idea if the patent grant in the CLA is good enough, that > would only cover people that contribute code. > >> ...Anyway, my point is, that from my perspective, with the information >> I am privy to, it seems to me there are -- sadly -- still cases where >> it might be necessary to dynamically load OpenSSL in Qt, even with >> OpensSSL 1.1. > > I don't think the 1.1 version will already be under the new > license. We still have many people to contact for this to happen.
Thanks for the update, Kurt. Much appreciated! Also, the code sharing aspect is more complex than I had anticipated in my previous message, because of the presence of a CLA -- so feel free disregard (some of) my blabbering. ;-)
