-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
cargo-deny: allow the MPL-2.0 and OpenSSL licenses #6136
Conversation
These are required in order to merge #5929.
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ allow = [ | |||
"BSD-3-Clause", | |||
"ISC", | |||
"MIT", | |||
"MPL-2.0", | |||
"OpenSSL", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is OpenSSL license still necessary if #5929 (comment) has switched to rustls
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, because the ring
crate includes the OpenSSL license in its LICENSE file.
I am strongly in favor of adding MPL-2.0, but I needed to review OpenSSL. We may need to add an open source software acknowledgements section to the wasmtime docs to include "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As discussed, I agree with this change.
@ricochet, Pat and I talked about this and agreed that these licenses don't change anything foundational: we already have a few licenses that require attribution even for binary distributions, and need to figure out an approach to dealing with them. I have some thoughts on the topic, but given that these licenses don't fundamentally change the picture, I think all this doesn't need to hold up landing this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've always been partial to MPL-2.0 :)
I added 1 more commit that clarifies the license for |
These are required in order to merge #5929.
I discussed this change with Till: we believe that these licenses are compatible with Wasmtime's license and don't add any fundamentally new requirements to the existing allow-list.
In an ideal world, I could imagine making an RFC or asking the Bytecode Alliance board weigh in on this decision, but we don't have any process or guidance for how to go about changing this list, and we don't expect this change to be controversial in any way. So, I've asked all of the BA TSC members (@fitzgen @tschneidereit @ricochet) to please approve this PR before I merge it.