nisse at lysator.liu.se
Mon May 30 20:07:59 CEST 2011
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav at gnutls.org> writes:
> I thought the GPL part applies only to the parts that are GPL and not to
> the whole library.
The manual says the following:
Nettle is distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) (see
the file COPYING for details). However, most of the individual files
are dual licensed under less restrictive licenses like the GNU Lesser
General Public License (LGPL), or are in the public domain. This means
that if you don't use the parts of nettle that are GPL-only, you have
the option to use the Nettle library just as if it were licensed under
the LGPL. To find the current status of particular files, you have to
read the copyright notices at the top of the files.
Things will get simpler once the serpent code is replaced.
> In any case would you suggest gnutls using nettle a la lsh, i.e.
> include it as a static library? That way we can eliminate licensing
> issues by removing the GPL parts.
My understanding is that as long as gnutls doesn't use the serpent code
(the only remaining GPL-only feature) and has no references to it, it's
ok no matter if you use static or dynamic linking. You can pretend that
the serpent code was never built and included into the library.
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.
More information about the nettle-bugs