Re: LGPL possible for SHA-1 provider?

[Bryce McKinlay]

Harald Albrecht wrote:

> So I probably should put a special note in the README pointing out that
> the SHA class is GPL instead of LGPL. This should be okay for users as
> this only applies to the stand-alone jrpcgen protocol compiler, so
> everyone can use the protocol compiler without getting touchy with the
> GPL (no, I'm not against the GPL, and I am using it for several projects
> of my own and perfer it, but for political reasons, sometimes the LGPL
> is of more use in certain situations).

The SHA class (and most of the rest of classpath) is not GPL!! It uses the
GPL+exception classpath license, which is actually less restrictive than
the LGPL. I believe there should be no problem including it with an LGPL'ed
library, or in fact a non-GPL application, provided that you follow the
terms of the GPL _for the SHA class itself_. The exception allows you to
link classpath (ie: include it, in whole or in part) with whatever you like
without the GPL applying to that code as well.

You can't go and change the license on the SHA class to be LGPL. That would
effectivly be making the license more restrictive (taking away some
rights) for your modified versions of the class.

regards

Bryce.