Re: LGPL possible for SHA-1 provider?

[Brian Jones]

Bryce McKinlay <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

I think I said this regarding LGPL distribution.  Like the LGPL, I
believe our license would allow for distribution under the GPL minus
the exception since this would be more restrictive and probably ok
with the FSF.  But like you said, he should be fine with the
GPL+exception and let it go at that since it provides the same
freedoms as the LGPL plus some things.

Brian
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>