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 . ;-) > 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. cu andreas [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. -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
