From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.saout.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.saout.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uiQlvfNPwmfl for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:19:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ea0-f179.google.com (mail-ea0-f179.google.com [209.85.215.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:19:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ea0-f179.google.com with SMTP id i12so4515385eaa.38 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 03:19:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50DED1D6.7000701@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:19:50 +0100 From: Milan Broz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [dm-crypt] [ANNOUNCE] relaxing license for cryptsetup (GPLv2 only -> GPLv2+) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: dm-crypt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, next version of cryptsetup will be distributed under "GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" (Previous version was GPLv2 only, so adding "or any later" part.) This should solve problems when code is need to be used together with GPLv3. I also changed license of some device backend sub-libraries (crypto backend/wrapper, loopaes, verity and new tcrypt code) to use "GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version". Milan P.S. My intention was to change whole libcryptsetup to be covered by LGPL2.1+, unfortunately I have no agreement from Clemens as author of LUKS code for this particular change so libcryptsetup license (as a whole) will change only to "GPLv2 or any later". I do not want to delay next release 1.6 anymore because of this, there is a lot of changes for testing already. See also http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html (FYI I do not agree with all the arguments there personally and I think that LGPL is better if it allows more broad use of open-formats like LUKS.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ3tHLAAoJENmwV3vZPpj8eR4P/26Umu5WQSGt7P0O+vJX9wF7 y+NxQUIRUXqaR55zkLg5xKi+Tz20tkvsoNpBn0gPDGhzFVAQzaZ96srr7bnPWSZZ TpvuHcfx5EVj13RcnjdpSYnLaW/14oEeRSgUslT8TL5mpRs86bE9Bs47q8lFHm1+ tijXndHTFl9NHE2c+D3F8sHSgPehC9LEV9MwOuSVcfyu+orYMG65njYF7t9UEX11 t7fGPu4Wb7+eCWbtWDcTiEMYmsZl1TnKrByNjsbM4bLwaEL9uIRpuDcwAxPWhMvu 40/l8rkmct/X23N0rBySzRd3Oe/Zz/0wovTQKeLDDHmL4q4TLki5XAlBS0sKeDC3 88N6TY6KLuDG4ZKb4edSgruYXg/lVl3kklCXHUGiVzbPz+x8cosP9oFtbRkIT3Zg ETiWcOMOcw+jmkxNQl0QHS4dlvX2ibTjOhOsHYx0uSpzcktQW9Q12W/YAHvfM0I7 Nmsp2fKDlyBK0zWsbYBSFZujTP+jHbpVZQekF6qkOMDIF6tThxTEq9W7J0uOl1p6 aE1W1XH9zT/d4xSFFl3BzJAQ2P6Nf2gmiYhp2OT8qlNaBxD7R4nNzr8C6iYMafmi eikKncvCdji8qAuHji/CVif1CwJubbbM9sJVFHwU2CqtUv7X/Y+ibBXVVwgpiVqU cnCu2apWH8WzQ3Q+ixDN =KKEd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----