Re: [libmicrohttpd] From LGPL 3.0 to LGPL 2.1?

[silvioprog]

I'm linking GnuTLS into my library.

I have a doubt. Should any library which links GnuTLS be lisenced under LGPL 2.1 too?

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 8:23 AM Evgeny Grin <address@hidden> wrote:

16.05.2019 0:28, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> On 5/15/19 1:37 AM, silvioprog wrote:
>> Hello friends.
>>
>> After updating my git, I found the following commit log:
>>
>> /"Updated README and COPYING/
>> /Note: library code is licensed under LGPLv2.1+ or eCOS terms//
>> /Come testsuite programs are licensed under GPLv3 terms."/
>>
>> Could you explain the main reasons? (Any advantages/disadvantages?)
>>
>> I would like to understand it because I'm going to upgrade MHD in my
>> project.
>
> To clarify, this is not really a change in license, AFAIK it was just
> clarified in the README. MHD has always been under LGPLv2.1+, and due to
> certain requests we dual-licensed under GPL+eCOS exception some years
> ago for the subset the code that doesn't touch GnuTLS.
>
> So an upgrade should not change anything for your project.
>

That's absolutely correct.
Library code was always provided under dual LGPLv2.1+ and eCOS licenses.
If you link MHD with GnuTLS, then you should use LGPLv2.1+ license.
Separate licenses for testsuite programs do not change anything for
library itself.

LGPLv2.1+ licensed code could be modified and reused under LGPLv2.1+,
LGPLv3+, GPLv2+ and GPLv3(+).
LGPLv3+ licensed code could be modified and reused under LGPLv3+ and
GPLv3(+) only.
MHD is licensed under LGPLv2.1+ terms, which allow wider reuse of code.
Additional eCOS license further increase flexibility.

--
Wishes,
Evgeny

--

Silvio Clécio