On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:51:21PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Peter Pentchev <[email protected]> writes: > > >> Seqoia PGP is LGPLv2+ after requests, I believe from RedHat and maybe > >> others, but I don't know the full story. It first used GPLv3+ and then > >> GPLv2+ and then LGPLv2+: > >> > >> https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia/-/blob/main/LICENSE.txt > >> > >> https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia/-/commits/main/LICENSE.txt > > > > ...so all strong-copyleft licenses, from the start. > > The LGPL is a weak copyleft license: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Strong_and_weak_copyleft > > 'Free-software licenses that use "weak" copyleft include the GNU > Lesser General Public License and the Mozilla Public License.'
Right... and I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what your point is here, especially as a comparison with GnuPG. So the main differences between the GPL and the LGPL do not concern executable files, but libraries used by other projects. So: - for executable files, there is no practical difference between the licenses of /usr/bin/sq and /usr/bin/gpg - for projects that want to use the cryptographic primitives, uh, well, you see, there is *no difference AT ALL* between the licenses of the sequoia_openpgp Rust crate and the libgcrypt GnuPG library :) So... what exactly is the problem with the licensing of sq? G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] PGP key: https://www.ringlet.net/roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
