Use LGPL v2.1 instead of v3 for better license compatibility about codecrypt

[exaexa]

This is, in fact, a good question. I've chosen LGPL3 so that codecrypt can be loaded as library and used as such without restriction (I have no problem with that), on the other hand I have trouble with closed hardware (that GPL3 strictly denies). As I read the compatibility chart, I'm not even sure if codecrypt can link with crypto++ and fftw3 without violating the license. Any suggestions?

Also, I'm not sure if we should relicense given there isn't even a draft of any inclusion. If you'd know about anything, please share.

[infinity0]

I don't think I contributed enough to be significant for copyright purposes, but in any case I agree to relicense to whatever everyone else thinks is necessary (as long as it's copyleft).

Personally I recommend sticking with LGPL3 unless there is a specific GPL2-only software that would like to link with codecrypt, where this becomes a concrete and not just hypothetical issue.

[IBPX]

FFTW3 is licensed as GPL v2 or later so codecrypt including it is okay, but the resulting combination is licensed under the GPL v3 and not the LGPL. Source of codecrypt is still LGPL, so someone could theoretically fork it and remove its dependency on FFTW3, and the resulting product would just be LGPL.

Crypto++ uses the Boost license which is GPL compatible according to the FSF, and from my (non-lawyer) reading of the license itself, seems like it should be LGPL compatible as well (without conveying the resulting combination as GPL), but I'm not sure.

I don't know of any GPL v2-only software that wants to use codecrypt. This is just a hypothetical issue, but I think the more compatibility the better if there are no significant trade-offs that devs here care about. The main trade-off from what I've gathered is between more compatibility (which LGPL v2.1 offers) and disallowing closed hardware (which v3 does).

@infinity0 wrote:

I don't think I contributed enough to be significant for copyright purposes, but in any case I agree to relicense to whatever everyone else thinks is necessary (as long as it's copyleft).

I think the contributions by you and @mapmeld might be insignificant for copyright, but it's good to make sure.

[exaexa]

about fftw3 -- we are linking against it, not including it, I guess that's the same?

[exaexa]

Timed out. Please reopen if you have a working project that will benefit from licence change.