On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Brad Hards <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We thought about that, but it wouldn't be adequate. That is because gmp >> that now gnutls is linked to, is LGPLv3. Even if we allow dual >> license gmp doesn't. Note however that the problem is not in LGPLv3 >> which allows linking with everything, even proprietary programs. It is >> GPLv2-only that causes the issue. It can be easily solved by the >> authors of GPLv2-only programs by allowing linking with an >> LGPLv3 library (see [0]). > Unfortunately the poppler code is based on xpdf code, for which the original > author does not appear willing to relicense. A re-license to GPLv3 is not really necessary. An exception to the license to allow linking to LGPLv3 libraries would be. This is a very sad situation, as the problem GnuTLS was solving (the need for openssl library exceptions) is now introduced by GnuTLS itself on GPLv2-only projects. > The poppler additions are GPLv2+. > Is there any scope for asking gmp to do GPLv2/LGPLv3+? Is that the only issue? We have already asked gmp and they didn't seem to be willing for the relicense. I'd suggest to contact [email protected], not so to get a solution, but mostly to make them know this is a real problem they need to work on. I don't know how I can help here. For us dual-licensing to GPLv2/LGPLv3+ would be possible, if all the libraries in the chain (now only gmp) do the same. This is not an easy choice from the library makers also, since such a dual-license would prohibit them from copying code from plain LGPLv3+ projects. regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ Help-gnutls mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnutls
