Unfortunately, the issue isn't the compatibility of the license - they do indeed look relatively compatible to me - and the discussion on this thread has so far been about that. However the contributor license agreement requires that the copyright owner grants such permission - it is the fundamental basis of contributor agreements.
Both the CCLA and ICLA make that exceedingly clear the contributor (individual or company) is "*the copyright owner or legal entity authorized by the copyright owner*" and the grants in the CLA are not grants that the notice in the RFC provide. In this case, the person who raised the PR is unable to meet those requirements (please do correct me if I am wrong on that) and as such their contribution is unable to be accepted. Tim. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:12 PM Dr Paul Dale <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems okay from here too. > > Pauli > -- > Dr Paul Dale | Cryptographer | Network Security & Encryption > Phone +61 7 3031 7217 > Oracle Australia > > > > > On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:59 am, Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 12:27:38PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 03:39:10PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote: > >> > >>> PR 9199 incorporates the C punycode implementation from RFC3492: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9199 > >>> > >> > >> I'd be comfortable with relicensing under Apache, while clearly > >> indicating the provenance of the code, and indicating that the > >> file is also available under the original terms. > > > > Me, too. > > > > -Ben > >
