[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libmicrohttpd] From LGPL 3.0 to LGPL 2.1?

From: silvioprog
Subject: Re: [libmicrohttpd] From LGPL 3.0 to LGPL 2.1?
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 00:16:46 -0300

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 <address@hidden> 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.


Silvio Cl├ęcio

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]