I'm linking GnuTLS into my library. I have a doubt. Should any library which links GnuTLS be lisenced under LGPL 2.1 too?
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 8:23 AM Evgeny Grin <k...@yandex.ru> wrote: > > 16.05.2019 0:28, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > On 5/15/19 1:37 AM, silvioprog wrote: > >> Hello friends. > >> > >> After updating my git, I found the following commit log: > >> > >> /"Updated README and COPYING/ > >> /Note: library code is licensed under LGPLv2.1+ or eCOS terms// > >> /Come testsuite programs are licensed under GPLv3 terms."/ > >> > >> Could you explain the main reasons? (Any advantages/disadvantages?) > >> > >> I would like to understand it because I'm going to upgrade MHD in my > >> project. > > > > To clarify, this is not really a change in license, AFAIK it was just > > clarified in the README. MHD has always been under LGPLv2.1+, and due to > > certain requests we dual-licensed under GPL+eCOS exception some years > > ago for the subset the code that doesn't touch GnuTLS. > > > > So an upgrade should not change anything for your project. > > > > That's absolutely correct. > Library code was always provided under dual LGPLv2.1+ and eCOS licenses. > If you link MHD with GnuTLS, then you should use LGPLv2.1+ license. > Separate licenses for testsuite programs do not change anything for > library itself. > > LGPLv2.1+ licensed code could be modified and reused under LGPLv2.1+, > LGPLv3+, GPLv2+ and GPLv3(+). > LGPLv3+ licensed code could be modified and reused under LGPLv3+ and > GPLv3(+) only. > MHD is licensed under LGPLv2.1+ terms, which allow wider reuse of code. > Additional eCOS license further increase flexibility. > > -- > Wishes, > Evgeny -- Silvio Clécio
