LGPL vs. OCB license
r030t1 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 15 18:04:15 CET 2017
As for the content of the license, it doesn't actually stipulate any
additional terms or in fact a particular license. I have no idea what
they are talking about on the Debian bug report. Has anyone read the
license? It is very short and written in plain language. The LGPL
would qualify under section 1.5., and the license adds no terms.
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Werner Koch <wk at gnupg.org> wrote:
> 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.
He mentions he holds a patent, but that only means he has the right to
enforce his choice of license. Per the page there are three licenses.
> 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.
Such an opinion is cowardly and reprehensible: if you can not give
legal advise on friendly terms, then it is only because you do not
understand the law; if you do not understand the law, which you are
subject to every day, then how can you in good faith say that the law
is valid and that you are its subject?
Even if you want to follow the law, you have just told me that you can
not, because you do not understand it.
> 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.
If he is not a lawyer, why should he check the licenses? Even if he
thinks he understands the terms, he may not be a lawyer, and any
understanding of his would then be intrinsically flawed.
More information about the Gcrypt-devel