gpgme license

marius aamodt eriksen marius at
Thu Jul 18 23:41:07 CEST 2002

* Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann at> [020716 14:15]:

> > as for easy-to-include cryptography, do remember openssl with their
> > libcrypto.  it has become quite polished and easy to use.  openssl is
> > dual licensed, and both of them are BSD style.  so i don't think
> > anyone is getting an advantage like you claim.  gzsig uses openssl's
> > digital signature mechanisms for both DSA and RSA signatures, but it
> > lacked PGP support which i found handy.
> You say that people can use libcrypto instead of gpgme, but in the next
> sentence you say that libcrypto does not do the same job as GPGME.  I don't
> understand the logic in that.  GPGME supports OpenPGP and CMS with the same
> interface.

all i was saying is that gpgme isn't the only easy "free" way to
include cryptography in applications.

> Bottom line of this discussion is that gzsig and gpgme can be combined into
> a single program, which is then copylefted free software.  There is no need
> to LGPL GPGME to achieve this.

i think i understand this situation better now -- let's say some
company wants to modify gzsig in a proprietary way.  gzsig isn't GPLed
until it is linked with gpgme.  the company can modify gzsig all it
wants, it is under a bsd license, and then link it with gpgme, the
resulting binary would then be under GPL distribution conditions.  i
think these are acceptable conditions, thanks.


> marius at >

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list