
GCC licence change - brynet
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=149032069130072&w=2
======
flukus
> Therefore, I am asking all authors to respond to this thread if they object.

> ...

> If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you have no objection.

Is "nobody objected" a high enough bar to re license a project? Or am I
misunderstanding what's happening?

~~~
Qwertious
The context is that OpenSSL decided to re-license and sent an email saying
"send an email if you object" to everyone. Theo De Raadt understandably
objects strongly to this, and is parodying it by declaring intent to relicense
GCC in the same way.

Also, he's contacting gcc devs by emailing tech@openbsd.org.

The entire point is that it's NOT a high enough bar.

~~~
ajross
Maybe not, but...

Is it wrong that I really don't care? The OpenSSL license is a historical
disaster, and Apache 2.0 is just infinitely preferable. Everyone is up in arms
about the principle of the thing, but can't we just agree to fix the license?
Does anyone _not_ want this?

~~~
slimsag
That's the point: Does anyone _not_ want this?

A group of people can't just get together and decide to 'change' the license
of something when they are not the owner of said thing. In this case,
contributions to OpenSSL. You're welcome to "want" OpenSSL to be under
MyFavoriteLicense but at the end of the day when you use it and lawyers come
after you because someone's contribution _wasn't under MyFavoriteLicense_,
it's your fault.

------
Gaelan
Mods, could we get a title edit clarifying the joke?

~~~
dogecoinbase
Please use the original title.

~~~
geofft
"...unless it is misleading or linkbait."

------
wwwigham
Ahhh, the open source community joking about relicensing. Reminds me of that
PR on swift right after it was open-sourced[1]. I've been contacted in the
past W.R.T. a relicensing effort for a project I'd worked on. Given that I was
as fine with the new terms as the old, I gave it the go-ahead[2].

I know people like to care about the integrity of licenses and such, but IMO
so long as there's a good faith effort to communicate with past contributors,
relicensing seems reasonable (if a pain). Maybe they shouldn't have said
"silence is acceptance" in their email, though.

[1][https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/17](https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/17)
[2][https://github.com/thrimbor/sbep/issues/1](https://github.com/thrimbor/sbep/issues/1)

------
michaelmrose
It's unclear how anyone on the openssl team can possibly think this is going
to work unless they believe corporate sponsorship provides them with enough
clout/money to bully dissenters.

------
shmerl
_> Everyone deserves access to C technology without restriction, especially as
rust makes inroads._

What? Is this whole letter some form of sarcasm?

~~~
ecma
Yes, see
[https://marc.info/?t=149028609000002&r=1&w=2](https://marc.info/?t=149028609000002&r=1&w=2)
for some context. One of the other comments summarised why this is funny.

~~~
rurban
Only very few find this funny. This is no joke. This is a serious death treat
towards LibreSSL. Theo reacted with a satire. But not a funny one.

~~~
geofft
What prevents LibreSSL from being under an Apache 2.0-compatible license?

(Also, what prevents LibreSSL from replying with "This is great, but can we
get dual MIT/Apache 2.0"?)

~~~
rurban
Dual licensing seems to be the best solution, yes. The license specialists
need to come up with a solution. I'm not one

