LGPL vs. OCB license

Ineiev ineiev at gnu.org
Wed Dec 20 19:17:13 CET 2017

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 09:26:39PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 20:17, ametzler at bebt.de said:
> > OpenSSL is in a different situation than everybody else, they got a
> > special OCB license without the additional restrictions on top of the
> > OpenSSL license.
> According to private discussions this was on their explicit request to
> make it really clear.  It has already been suggested to the OpenPGP WG
> that we could ask for an explicit license for the OpenPGP protocol.  Why
> not also ask for a similar special license for Libgcrypt?  Well, that
> might end up with explicit licenses for all free software libraries.

I wonder what FSF's lawyers said about this matter...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gcrypt-devel/attachments/20171220/5d1c517e/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gcrypt-devel mailing list