Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: GNU Nettle 3.0 Cryptographics Library Released

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,115

    Default GNU Nettle 3.0 Cryptographics Library Released

    Phoronix: GNU Nettle 3.0 Cryptographics Library Released

    The developers behind the Nettle project are out with a new major update to their dual-licensed GPLv2 and LGPLv3+ cryptographics library...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTcxNDE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    125

    Default Re

    GPLv2 and LGPLv3, couldn't they find more developer unfriendly licenses?
    Sick of GNU software with sadistic open source licenses...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    Awesome. I like all those optimisations. And love the license choice, too.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alliancemd View Post
    GPLv2 and LGPLv3, couldn't they find more developer unfriendly licenses?
    I know I can use LGPLv2 libraries in a (closed-source) project without too much hassle; just link dynamically and provide the licence text somewhere… right? Is LGPLv3 preventing this?

    I remember reading that v3 was made to prevent using the code in a closed appliance. I’ve read GPLv2 once but there’s no way I’m spending the time again to read v3.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stqn View Post
    I know I can use LGPLv2 libraries in a (closed-source) project without too much hassle; just link dynamically and provide the licence text somewhere… right? Is LGPLv3 preventing this?

    I remember reading that v3 was made to prevent using the code in a closed appliance. I’ve read GPLv2 once but there’s no way I’m spending the time again to read v3.
    Yes, the tivoization is the bulk. If you provide a desktop app, not a closed applicance, nothing changes for you.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Yes, the tivoization is the bulk. If you provide a desktop app, not a closed applicance, nothing changes for you.
    The incompatibility with GPLv2 (unavoidable if v3 was to be meaningful, of course) makes it impossible to use GPLv3 code in any v2 project without an or-later clause*, unless every current or former project member can be contacted. I don't think this division was worthwhile to address an issue that affects a handful of low-level projects - especially since the 'victim' of the original 'tivoisation' scaremongering doesn't even think switching is worthwhile.

    *And no project should have that clause, because it's stupid. You're trusting not only that every future FSF committee will represent your views,but that even if they do, no future GPL version they ever produce will have a serious loophole. By pinning yourself to a single license you make your code vulnerable to any loopholes in that one license; the or-later clause makes it vulnerable to holes in that and any subsequent 'GPL' license ever written.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    570

    Default They whine about getting their own medicine fed back to them

    First the proprietary devs blow us off when we ask them to open proprietary drivers, then they whine when we return the closed-source favor with copyleft licensing that keeps them from exploiting our work for their profit. There are a lot of things we do that are vulnerable to the M$ "Embrace, expand, extinguish" philosophy of getting people hooked on proprietary extensions or forks, then using this to snuff out the open-source progenitor.

    A hell of a lot of effort had to go into GNU and similar licenses-and I fully agree with the GPL3 ban on "Tivoizatiion." Hell, I think computing devices that treat the user as a thief and black hat should not even be on the market under implied warranties of fitness and merchantability.

    Suppose MS decided to extinguish Android and nothing on it, not even the kernel, was GPL. They could fork it for the next Windows phone as "everything you always loved about Android and more." Back this up with a bunch of end-user friendly proprietary apps designed to check for and refuse to run on anything but the MS version, finally lock the bootloader, firmware, and kernel to prevent anyone from adding code to the FOSS version to trick the MS apps into running on the parent fork. Use this to drive Android off the market, repeat the MS/Crapple Duopoly.
    That kind of shit is why there is a GPL and a GPL3.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alliancemd View Post
    GPLv2 and LGPLv3, couldn't they find more developer unfriendly licenses?
    Sick of GNU software with sadistic open source licenses...
    How about proprietary one? Sick of bsd software with proprietary friendly licenses. Support true Open Source (GPL) not proprietary crap.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alliancemd View Post
    GPLv2 and LGPLv3, couldn't they find more developer unfriendly licenses?
    Sick of GNU software with sadistic open source licenses...
    I think copyleft licenses may actually be more developer-friendly (as you didn't say “professional developer-friendly”). Since you must keep the code free/libre and readable by the users –*some of them being developers*–, you're able to get help from them, which could make your developer life easier.
    Last edited by Calinou; 06-08-2014 at 10:17 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •