Review use of BSD License in view of inclusion of GPLv2 polarssl code
Cetlib's current license file is BSD, but the library includes code from the polarssl project, the files of which are GPLv2. It's likely (but I am not a lawyer) that this falls under the "combining two modules" FAQ on the GPLv2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#MereAggregation . That may require that cetlib is also GPLv2 licensed, and possibly that clients of cetlib are also GPLv2 licensed (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#IfLibraryIsGPL)
FWIW I have no opinion on the best open/free license, but simply want to avoid problems down the road!
#2 Updated by Kyle Knoepfel almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from Accepted to Resolved
- Assignee set to Kyle Knoepfel
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
- Estimated time set to 0.00 h
cetlib classes now depend on natively-installed
openssl instead of
polarssl, allowing us to remove the
polarssl dependency entirely. Note, however, that once we support El Capitan distributions of
art, we may need to choose a different solution, since
openssl is no longer included with El Capitan. One option may be using the Apple-provided
Implemented with cetlib:00e7d8ee.