Description
Currently, the LICENSE file is large and complicated, while can be vaguely regarded as a combination of MIT, ISC, and OpenSSL’s licenses.
Although the latest OpenSSL license is Apache License 2.0, in this repo, we use a few of sentences refer to the BSD-style licenses with advertising clauses:
Lines 66 to 83 in 6c29bf6
Lines 137 to 145 in 6c29bf6
It causes concerns in downstream for using this software in a mindset like so-called "permissive OSS license" or "weak copyleft license": https://lists.apache.org/thread/ptwdv18z4wd9r11nmdwj7wgzwvm3b8l2
@briansmith do you have more background of the license content, or how generally a downstream user use it?
The background of this questions is from https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x that "BSD-4-Clause/BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)" can introduce burden for users to convey this software - they're, be required, to include extra acknowledgement for certern actions. And while if we can either:
- use an Apache License 2.0 base, or;
- be clear that what part of this crate is not covered by these licenses.