[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcrypt-devel
Subject:    Re: LGPL vs. OCB license
From:       Ineiev <ineiev () gnu ! org>
Date:       2017-12-20 18:17:13
Message-ID: 20171220181713.GT14285 () gnu ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 09:26:39PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 20:17, ametzler@bebt.de said:
>
> > OpenSSL is in a different situation than everybody else, they got a
> > special OCB license without the additional restrictions on top of the
> > OpenSSL license.
>
> According to private discussions this was on their explicit request to
> make it really clear.  It has already been suggested to the OpenPGP WG
> that we could ask for an explicit license for the OpenPGP protocol.  Why
> not also ask for a similar special license for Libgcrypt?  Well, that
> might end up with explicit licenses for all free software libraries.

I wonder what FSF's lawyers said about this matter...

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
Gcrypt-devel mailing list
Gcrypt-devel@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gcrypt-devel


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]