[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: relicense libtasn1 to LGPLv3+

From: Simon Josefsson
Subject: Re: relicense libtasn1 to LGPLv3+
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:48:12 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux)

Andreas Metzler <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2011-12-06 Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Andreas Metzler <address@hidden> writes:
>>> On 2011-12-06 Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> 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 . ;-)

Libtasn1 1.x is still supported.  But it has the same soname...

Actually, bumping soname might be nice to finally get rid of the

>> 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 
> without receiving any responses (on list) and wrote it off. You seem
> to have had a little bit more luck in
> but the thread also simply stopped.

Yeah, I don't see this as impossible, it just requires that someone
pursues this with more effort.

> [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.

Because of ABI changes or license?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]