Inside OpenSSL's battle to change its license: Coders' rights, tech giants, patents and more

Devs who fail to respond to call for change will count as 'yes' votes for AL 2.0

Analysis The OpenSSL project, possibly the most widely used open-source cryptographic software, has a license to kill – specifically its own. But its effort to obtain permission to rewrite contributors' rights runs the risk of alienating the community that sustains it.

The software is licensed under the OpenSSL License, which includes its own terms and those dating back to the preceding SSLeay license.

Those driving the project announced plans to shift to a new license in 2015 and now the thousand or so people who have contributed code over the years have started receiving email messages asking them to grant permission to relicense their contributions under the Apache Software License, version 2.

Theo De Raadt, founder of OpenBSD, a contributor to OpenSSL, and creator of a LibreSSLforked from OpenSSL in 2014 – expressed dissatisfaction with the relicensing campaign in a mailing list post, criticizing OpenSSL for failing to consult its community of authors.

"My worry is that the rights of the authors are being trampled upon, and they are only being given one choice of license which appears to be driven by a secret agreement between big corporations, Linux Foundation, lawyers, and such," he explained in an interview with The Register via phone and email.

For years, OpenSSL went largely unappreciated, until the Heartbleed vulnerability surfaced in 2014 and shamed the large companies that depend on the software for online security to contribute funds and code.

The planned licensing change comes with the endorsement of Intel and Oracle, among the companies that pledged $3.9 million to the Linux Foundation as atonement. A portion of that funding transformed OpenSSL into something more than the shoe-string operation it had been for years.

Rich Salz, a member of the OpenSSL development team and senior architect at Akamai Technologies, in a phone interview with The Register, said that in the year before Heartbleed, two people were responsible for almost all of the changes being incorporated into OpenSSL. Now there are at least 150 contributing and making pull requests, he said.

Salz cited several reasons for seeking a new license for OpenSSL.

"If you read the SSLeay license carefully, it says among other things you cannot distribute this code under any other license," he said. "What that means is for people who make derivations and want to license their changes, as long as their changes are derived from SSLeay license, they can't."

The license also includes advertising credit clauses, which Salz characterized as "obnoxious." He said, "We want to move to a license that's completely standard and well-known and widely accepted by the community, by the industry."

A source familiar with software licensing, who asked not to be named because of lack of employer authorization, echoed Salz's concerns, describing the SSLeay license as a contractual freak and a compliance nightmare. The license states that the code cannot be placed under another license, which makes it incompatible with some popular copyleft licenses because they stipulate additional terms can only ease restrictions, the source said.

The advertising clause mentioned by Salz, according to the source, requires that any mention of software including OpenSSL comes with attribution. "This does not say when you distribute, it says when you talk about it," the source said. "That's a restriction on use, which runs very contrary to the spirit of what the community has worked towards."

Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022