On 05/30/2011 10:36 AM, Niels Möller wrote: > Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]> writes: > >> May I suggest an intermediate release with GCM under LGPLv2+? >> That would ensure that current applications using gnutls can use that >> code. > An all-LGPL release is not possible until the serpent code is replaced, > so any releases before that would use the current licensing terms (GPL > as a whole, certain parts under more permissive license). > So I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting.
I thought the GPL part applies only to the parts that are GPL and not to the whole library. In any case would you suggest gnutls using nettle a la lsh, i.e. include it as a static library? That way we can eliminate licensing issues by removing the GPL parts. regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
