LGPL vs. OCB license

Werner Koch wk at gnupg.org
Fri Dec 15 17:32:50 CET 2017

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:03, jan.kiszka at siemens.com said:

> My concern is now that this restriction excludes runtime linking as the
> LGPL would otherwise allow. And because cipher-ocb.c is an unconditional
> part of libgcrypt (unless you do local package surgery...), I would
> interpret this as the library becoming effectively GPL this way. Am I wrong?

The mentioned patent license granted by Rogaway and the software license
are two very different things and can't be compared.  Thus your
assumptions that you have effectively the GPL is not correct.

I am not allowed to give any legal advise but I would suggest that you
check out the other license options provided by Rogaway.  For example
license 2 which can be used for almost all kind of usages in software.

In any case, if you use a certain software you better check all other
conditions on whether you are able to use and distribute the software -
regardless of the software license.  This may include patent research,
trademark issues, or whether you are eligible to execute the rights
granted by the license (for example permanent termination of the license
due to prior violation of it).  I am pretty sure your legal department
knows about all of this.



Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gcrypt-devel/attachments/20171215/d42403bd/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gcrypt-devel mailing list