Peter Pentchev <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 10:30:44PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > [snip] >> My point earlier in the thread was that by replacing (strongly) copyleft >> software by non-copyleft software (and I include weak-copyleft in the >> non-copyleft category) in Debian there is a risk the technical >> excellence of Debian will be used to subjugate users, and that >> eventually this could erode the foundation for why Debian is technically >> excellent in the first place. > [snip] >> I think a Debian core without any remaining (enforcable strongly) >> copyleft components a not unlikely scenario in the next ~10 years. The >> move towards that has been happening for many years already, using >> various arguments including changing to "better software". bash, gawk, >> wget, libgcrypt, info, etc. The market forces are there to promote >> this. > > Not commenting on your general point here, just... again, please stop > using libgcrypt as an example for that: most of it is weak-copyleft by > your definition above (LGPL-2.1+), and some of the most-often-executed > parts (e.g. some SHA-* implementations for amd64) are even under > a BSD-3-Clause license.
You are right - although I meant gpgv there, not libgcrypt. The most sensitive PGP parts is done in gpg(v) not in libgcrypt. gpg(v) is GPL. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
