Re: relicense libtasn1 to LGPLv3+

[Andreas Metzler]

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 . ;-)

> 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'