GMP license problem, anyone?

Brian Gladman brg at
Fri May 30 12:36:51 CEST 2008

Torbjorn Granlund wrote:

 > "Bill Hart" <goodwillhart at> writes:
 >   Firstly, Linus Torvalds and other linux kernel hackers didn't want v3.
 >   Linus said the kernel would remain v2 and I quote: "Conversion isn't
 >   going to happen."
 >   Is that relevant here?

I believe it is since a number of his criticisms of GPL/LGPL v3 apply 
more widely and may well apply here (I am not saying that they do).

Moreover he is very influential so when he expresses concerns, other 
people really do listen and then decide for themslves whether his points 
are valid. Many think that they are.

 >   2) So far the GMP project has refused to accept patches which will
 >   allow GMP to build under [insert proprietry OS and compiler here].
 > This is X fork propaganda.  Your statement (made elsewhere) to "Make
 > GMP build under Foo OS" doesn't perhaps say the "official" GMP doesn't
 > build there, but it surely tries to gove the reader such an
 > impression.

As far as I am aware there is no official port of GMP that compiles as a 
32-bit native library on Windows (i.e. without using Cygwin, Mingw or 
any other 'Unix on Windows' toolset).

Moreover, there is no official port of GMP that compiles as a 64-bit 
library on any 64-bit version of the Windows operating system.

Unless I am mistaken, neither Cygwin or Mingw can yet offer robust and 
reliable 64-bit compilation on the 64-bit versions of Windows. Moreover, 
they seem unlikely to be able to do so for some little time yet.

In contrast I have been providing a way of building 64-bit versions of 
GMP on the 64-bit versions of Windows for well over two years.

The views expressed by the 'X fork' folk about GMP on Windows are hence 
accurate and in no sense propaganda.

    Brian Gladman

More information about the gmp-discuss mailing list