Re: Concerning uniliateral decision making with respect to the coreutils package

Peter Pentchev <[email protected]> Mon, 13 Jul 2026 22:27:19 +0300

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:51:21PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Peter Pentchev <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> >> Seqoia PGP is LGPLv2+ after requests, I believe from RedHat and maybe
> >> others, but I don't know the full story.  It first used GPLv3+ and then
> >> GPLv2+ and then LGPLv2+:
> >> 
> >> https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia/-/blob/main/LICENSE.txt
> >> 
> >> https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia/-/commits/main/LICENSE.txt
> >
> > ...so all strong-copyleft licenses, from the start.
> 
> The LGPL is a weak copyleft license:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Strong_and_weak_copyleft
> 
>   'Free-software licenses that use "weak" copyleft include the GNU
>    Lesser General Public License and the Mozilla Public License.'

Right... and I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what your point is here,
especially as a comparison with GnuPG. So the main differences between
the GPL and the LGPL do not concern executable files, but libraries used
by other projects. So:
- for executable files, there is no practical difference between
  the licenses of /usr/bin/sq and /usr/bin/gpg
- for projects that want to use the cryptographic primitives, uh, well,
  you see, there is *no difference AT ALL* between the licenses of
  the sequoia_openpgp Rust crate and the libgcrypt GnuPG library :)

So... what exactly is the problem with the licensing of sq?

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev  [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
PGP key:        https://www.ringlet.net/roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115  C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)