Andreas Metzler <[email protected]> writes: > On 2011-12-06 Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Andreas Metzler <[email protected]> writes: >>> On 2011-12-06 Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> We are considering re-licensing Libtasn1 to LGPLv3+ and I wanted to hear >>>> if there are any strong reasons against that. >>> [...] > >>> I am not sure this counts as a strong reason, but I think GnuTLS using >>> GPLv2-only code (cups) would need to drop TLS support. Even after >>> GnuTLS switched to 3.0 they could continue using the legacy (but still >>> supported) gnutls 2.x series. > >> Eventually the 2.x series will not be supported though, what will happen >> then? > > No idea. > >> Anyway, just as cups could use old GnuTLS, they could use old Libtasn1, >> couldn't they? > > Not in distributions. e.g. in Debian the only straigtforward way I can > think of would be to not upload the relicensed tasn. gnutls v2 and v3 > (runtime) are co-installable (and co-packagable) since they use > different sonames.[1] OTOH I do not expect major code changes requiring a > soname bump in tasn. (I am not advocating a soname bump just for license > changes . ;-)
Libtasn1 1.x is still supported. But it has the same soname... Actually, bumping soname might be nice to finally get rid of the ASN1_DISABLE_DEPRECATED stuff... >> I don't see a simple solution for CUPS given that GnuTLS is LGPLv3+ >> after we noticed that GMP is LGPLv3+. Both libraries could be >> relicensed as dual-LGPLv3+|GPLv2+ though, but it requires some >> coordination and effort from somebody interested. > > I saw you trying to start a discussion in > http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-bugs/2011-February/002178.html > without receiving any responses (on list) and wrote it off. You seem > to have had a little bit more luck in > http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-devel/2011-May/001952.html > but the thread also simply stopped. Yeah, I don't see this as impossible, it just requires that someone pursues this with more effort. > [1] I do not think it is terribly wonderful to ship both versions but > we are required to, since simply switching to v3 in one step would > have broken a huge number of packages. Because of ABI changes or license? /Simon
