On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Niels Möller <[email protected]> wrote: > Andres Mejia <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Niels Möller <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> At some point the license may be upgraded to LGPLv3. Or dual license >>> LGPLv3 and GPLv2+. The latter, more complex, alternative would be >>> helpful for you, right? >> >> So long as XBMC can remain GPLv2, then it's ok. >> >> However, I'm sure there are some projects out there that could benefit >> from an LGPLv2.1 crypto library. I looked around and so far have found >> one, libaacs which is itself LGPLv2.1. libaacs is used indirectly by >> XBMC, through libbluray.
I just remembered another example of an LGPLv2.1 library that can make use of nettle. It's called GPAC. It currently uses openssl for crypto. I did at one time try to implement crypto support using libgcrypt, until I read about the problems that arise when using libgcrypt. > I have to look at this more closely before upgrading the license (which > I don't have any immediate plans of doing). I'm not sure, but I actually > don't see any obvious problem with linking LGPLv2 and LGPLv3 code > together. > > The problem when linking GPLv2 and LGPLv3 code together is not that > LGPLv3 doesn't allow it (after all, LGPL, any version, allows linking > even with with proprietary code), but that GPLv2 requires that the > *entire* work (except system libraries) can be distributed under GPLv2, > with no additional restrictions, and some of the new conditions in > (L)GPLv3 (probably the ones related to drm or patents) are additional > restrictions. > > And dual licensing as LGPLv3+ and GPLv2+ solves precisely that problem: > GPLv2 programs (including tivoized GPLv2 programs) can still use the > library under the GPLv2 conditions, while all other users of the > library, in particular, all proprietary applications, must abide by the > new conditions introduced in LGPLv3. This matrix here might help. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility So any LGPL program can use another LGPL library regardless of their versions. However, GPLv2 programs that want to use an LGPLv3 library will need to upgrade to GPLv3. This would be a problem for XBMC. Dual licensing would be better for us. And just to be clear, dual licensing as LGPLv3+ *or* GPLv2+ would be ok. > Regards, > /Niels > > -- > Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. > Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. > -- Regards, Andres Mejia _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
