roadmap for 3.0.0

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmav at
Thu Jun 9 11:57:04 CEST 2011

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Brad Hards <bradh at> wrote:

>> We thought about that, but it wouldn't be adequate. That is because gmp
>> that now gnutls is linked to, is LGPLv3. Even if we allow dual
>> license gmp doesn't. Note however that the problem is not in LGPLv3
>> which allows linking with everything, even proprietary programs. It is
>> GPLv2-only that causes the issue. It can be easily solved by the
>> authors of GPLv2-only programs by allowing linking with an
>> LGPLv3 library (see [0]).
> Unfortunately the poppler code is based on xpdf code, for which the original
> author does not appear willing to relicense.

A re-license to GPLv3 is not really necessary. An exception to the
license to allow
linking to LGPLv3 libraries would be. This is a very sad situation, as
the problem
GnuTLS was solving (the need for openssl library exceptions) is now introduced
by GnuTLS itself on GPLv2-only projects.

> The poppler additions are GPLv2+.
> Is there any scope for asking gmp to do GPLv2/LGPLv3+? Is that the only issue?

We have already asked gmp and they didn't seem to be willing for the
relicense. I'd suggest to contact licensing at, not so to get a
solution, but mostly to make them know this is a real problem they
need to work on.

I don't know how I can help here. For us dual-licensing to
GPLv2/LGPLv3+ would be possible, if all the libraries in the chain
(now only gmp) do the same. This is not an easy choice from the
library makers also, since such a dual-license would prohibit them
from copying code from plain LGPLv3+ projects.


More information about the Gnutls-help mailing list