releasing LGPL version of opencdk?

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmav at
Sun Apr 13 19:01:10 CEST 2008

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Timo Schulz <twoaday at> writes:
>> Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>>> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>>> Regarding naming, on second thought, I think it would be better to avoid
>>>> having 'gnutls' in the name of the LGPL package since it would be
>>>> confusing if any non-gnutls projects to link with it.
>>>> 'libopencdk-lite'?
>>> I also like the lite version better :)
>> I've to agree, that the 'gnutls' part might confuse user.
>> So it's settled, we use the 'libopencdk-lite' name :-).
> It seems the savannah people do not like project names that contain
> 'open'...
> How do you feel about using 'freecdk'?  This let us avoid the -lite
> suffix which is nice.  Or 'minicdk'?

We also have another problem I found during my migration to generic 
crypto functions. Since opencdk does crypto by itself it has (at least 
the included version) to call the gnutls API generic functions also, 
otherwise it will not be possible to completely offer a version compiled 
with another crypto library.

For this reason I'd suggest to consider making it (the tiny part) a part 
of gnutls. The generic API to use would be the exported gnutls _openpgp_ 
API. What do you think of this?


More information about the Gnutls-devel mailing list