Extending the license policy to include Apache-2.0

[Thiago Macieira]

On Friday, 17 September 2021 08:41:08 PDT Andreas Cord-Landwehr wrote:
> Yet no, it is not orthogonal IMHO, because our license list strives for
> compatibility between the licenses in our code base. If we would say that
> the GPL-2.0-only files are legacy/policy violation/or just deprecated, then
> I find it hard to say that we disallow Apache 2 while allowing e.g.
> BSD-2-Clause. My main argument would be that Apache 2 is fully compatible
> with GPL-3.0 (at least in the regard when being integrated with GPL-3.0
> code) and in my understanding it falls into the license policy section
> about "if it helps with compatibility".

I'm not arguing that. I actually agree with you: it is a good licence and 
chosen by many projects.

I meant OpenSSL 3's licence choice is an orthogonal problem. Code that is 
GPLv2-only today will not become compatible with OpenSSL 3 just because we add 
a new option.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
   Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering