On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 14:03 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 7 July 2015 at 21:09, akuster808 <akuster...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> which recipe? 2.7.1 / 3.1 or both? > >> > >> - armin > >> ( sucks at this licensing stuff) > > > > > > So: 2.7.1 is "LGPL" (v2). > > > > 3.1.1 is GPLv2+ or LGPLv3+. > > > > An "interesting" choice to say the least. Because the v2 bit is not L, I'm > > wondering if we will need to keep both versions. But a 3.1.1 recipe with > > GPLv2+ *or* LGPLv3+ would be a good start. > > I'd vote YES to keeping the LGPLv2 version available. > > GPL libraries are normally off limits for closed source apps, so the > new licensing options would be a problem for anyone with a proprietary > application using nettle in a distro which can't use [L]GPLv3. (I'm in > that category...).
Surely if you can't use [L]GPLv3, you want the 3.1.1 version which is GPLv2 (or other things)? Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core