GPGMail and the GPL?

Stéphane Corthésy stephane at
Wed May 18 08:54:28 CEST 2005


There is actually a problem with present version (1.1): GPGMail 
conflicts with the LGPL (gpgme/GPGME are LGPL'd), as it directly uses 
the code in the binary instead of linking to dynamic libraries; I 
wrongly assumed that I could use the LGPL'd code directly in my binary 
which is not LGPL'd (and not compatible with LGPL); originally I wanted 
to link to the libs dynamically, but encountered some problems at link 
stage and finally statically linked the lib to my bundle, without 
realizing that it was illegal.

I will fix problem by the end of the week (it's been fixed in my work 
area) and I'm really sorry about that.

Note also that gpgme != GPGME: gpgme is g10's C library, whereas GPGME 
is MacGPG's ObjC framework (that I wrote, but copyright is to MacGPG). 
Both are LGPL'd, and not GPL'd, since version 1.0.2; before that 
version I didn't link GPGMail to any of these libs, nor statically 
neither dynamically, and was using them in a GPL'd tool called 
GPGMEProxyServer which was a standalone GPL'd executable.

Once again I'm sorry about that and didn't intend to make any harm. Now 
let's face the consequences.


On May 18, 2005, at 4:19, Robert J. Hansen wrote:

> ... Stéphane Corthésy's GPGMail is a fine implementation of GnuPG for 
> the OS X platform, but my reading of the license suggests it's not 
> GPL-compliant.  The other text on the site suggests that he's using 
> gpgme to do some of the work, which would seem to lead to a license 
> conflict.
> Particularly, Stéphane's license requires:
>     * His written permission before:
>         * Large-scale redistribution of the source code
>         * Distributing source code in printed form
>         * Distributing modified source
>         * Using his source to create commercial products
>     * No fees may be charged for source, not even to
>       accomodate reasonable copying fees
>     * He can change the license at any time and have it
>       binding, without you agreeing to the new terms
> He's also misattributing GPGME's copyright; he's attributing it to 
> 2001-2003 the MacGPG Group.  I believe this attribution is in error.
> I'm not in any way trying to slight Stéphane's excellent work.  It's 
> good stuff.  I'm just hoping that one of the core GnuPG devels, 
> someone who holds copyright on a part of GnuPG, can politely ask 
> Stéphane what's going on and resolve any conflict, should one actually 
> exist.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-devel mailing list
> Gnupg-devel at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050518/74520eff/PGP.pgp

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list