[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls? |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:30:48 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) |
RMS asked if there are is reason GnuTLS should remain LGPLv2.1+ instead
of using LGPLv3+.
The reasons I'm familiar with includes lynx under GPLv2-only. Gnucash
is also said to contain GPLv2-only code.
Are there other reasons not to use LGPLv3+?
I recall hearing about policies that mandate LGPLv2.1+ in some projects,
for example the core libraries in GNOME, but I cannot find any reference
to this out there. Anyone?
/Simon
- Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?,
Simon Josefsson <=
- Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?, Joe Orton, 2008/09/09
- Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?, Simon Josefsson, 2008/09/09
- Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?, Daniel Kahn Gillmor, 2008/09/09
- Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?, Joe Orton, 2008/09/09
- Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?, David Marín Carreño, 2008/09/10
- Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?, Werner Koch, 2008/09/10
- Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?, Simon Josefsson, 2008/09/10
- Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?, Colin Leroy, 2008/09/10
- Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?, Simon Josefsson, 2008/09/10
- Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?, Werner Koch, 2008/09/10