Backport to GPL2 was: Re: Need Help

Matt yaverot at
Wed Apr 16 17:18:46 CEST 2008

Michael Kesper wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06:44PM +0100, Debabrata Das wrote:
> I suppose that GnuPG did not move just for fun to GPLv3 but for a
> reason. 

The reason is that the FSF released a new version of GPL.  I understand
somewhat why a v3 was needed, and why some would prefer to stay v2.
Political solidarity, or "just following party line", are not sufficient
justification to //some// people to move to move to a new (and to them
possibly inferior) license. If a "stronger" reason was given on this
list, then __I__ missed it. The reasons are 'good enough' to me, and I
suspect that those who have a say in GnuPG's license would prefer to
focus on 'fun coding challenges' than waste their time on a 'dull
political fight'.

>So if you can't comply with GNU GPL v3, better be prepared to switch.

I'm uncertain if Michael means to switch to GPL3 or switch to another
OpenPGP implementation that is not GPL (to avoid v3 issues). If
Debabrata's organization has ruled out GPLv3, then a page that lists
some non-GPL OpenPGPs is:
It doesn't reference RFC4880, so if heading that route you might need to
hit the second page of a google search.

I've probably stuck my foot in my mouth, so I'll stop here before I make
it worse.

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list