Re: Which license is libtasn1-config?

[Jeff Cai]

> I changed the license from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ on those parts that used
> GPLv2+ before.
>
> According to the vc logs, Nikos added libtasn1-config back in 2004.  You
> could ask him for the license.  However, I suspect the files were
> derived from somewhere else (GnuTLS?  Which in turn may have derived
> them from libgcrypt?) so that may require chasing the authors further.
>
> I believe the simplest solution is to remove these files.
>   
Currently gnome-keyring and GnuTLS still uses the command line, if we 
remove the script, the build will be broken.
Do you have plan to change it to use the .pc file.

Jeff
> /Simon
>
>
>   
> > Thanks
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >     
> > > Jeff Cai <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > >   
> > >       
> > > > Hi, Simon
> > > >
> > > > I'm confused that though libtasn1 is licensed under LGPLv2, then does
> > > > it mean libtasn1-config also is licensed under LGPLv2?
> > > >
> > > > If not, then what is its license? GPLv3 or LGPLv2?
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > Hi.  Actually, I cannot find a license header in libtasn1-config.in, so
> > > I'm equally confused.
> > >
> > > Normally build infrastructure stuff is GPLv3, so using that would be
> > > close at hand.  Alternatively, the all-permissive license used for other
> > > autoconf-related files may be used.  I noticed that libgcrypt uses it.
> > >
> > > However, I would prefer to get rid of the *-config scripts.  The idea
> > > behind *-config scripts is against the normal autoconf-approach to test
> > > for features, and works poorly in corner cases.  Even if some users
> > > prefers that model rather than the normal autoconf-approach, libtasn1
> > > supports pkg-config.  Pkg-config is at least widely used, and the M4
> > > code for it is likely more correct than libtasn1.m4.  People have
> > > probably adapted pkg-config for some corner cases before us.
> > >
> > > So let me propose that we remove libtasn1-config and libtasn1.m4 from
> > > libtasn1.  Instead, we recommend developers to use the normal
> > > autoconf-machinery to test for libraries, or if they don't like that,
> > > that they use pkg-config.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > /Simon
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Gnutls-devel mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel
> > >   
> > >       
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnutls-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel
>