Skip to content

Stop using OpenSSL-license-licensed code. #1827

Closed
@tisonkun

Description

@tisonkun

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:

ring/LICENSE

Lines 66 to 83 in 6c29bf6

* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
* software must display the following acknowledgment:
* "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
* for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)"
*
* 4. The names "OpenSSL Toolkit" and "OpenSSL Project" must not be used to
* endorse or promote products derived from this software without
* prior written permission. For written permission, please contact
* [email protected].
*
* 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "OpenSSL"
* nor may "OpenSSL" appear in their names without prior written
* permission of the OpenSSL Project.
*
* 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
* acknowledgment:
* "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
* for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/)"

ring/LICENSE

Lines 137 to 145 in 6c29bf6

* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* "This product includes cryptographic software written by
* Eric Young ([email protected])"
* The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the library
* being used are not cryptographic related :-).
* 4. If you include any Windows specific code (or a derivative thereof) from
* the apps directory (application code) you must include an acknowledgement:
* "This product includes software written by Tim Hudson ([email protected])"

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:

  1. use an Apache License 2.0 base, or;
  2. be clear that what part of this crate is not covered by these licenses.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions