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

Re: Bug#218832: ITP: libnettle -- a low-level cryptographic library

On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:22:31PM -0500, John Belmonte scribbled:
> Marek Habersack wrote:
> >>My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some 
> >>under LGPL, and some in the public domain.  If that's the case, the 
> >>library as a whole must be considered to be under the GPL, correct?
> >
> >Yes, that's the case. I just wanted to highlight the fact that parts of it
> >have different licenses.
> If the library as a whole must be under GPL license, how is it 
> significant that parts of it were once under LGPL or on the public 
> domain?  The purpose of the License field is to tell the user what 
> license the software in the package is under, not to give a history of 
> previous or constituent licensing.
Quoting from the nettle manual:

 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. 

That should answer your question - they weren't "once", they still are
licensed under the listed licenses and I believe that good information is
very important



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: