Reg: GMP LGPL3 License

[Cade Brown]

I'm resending this, because gmp-discuss got removed from `To:`

The legality of linking and including LGPL code is much more 'lawyer
oriented' for version 3, so I understand your confusion.

Using https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html and https://www.gnu.org/
licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html , I can see that you only need to include
`Installation Information` if the GPL section 6 requires you too. Here is
the relevant portions from GPL3, section 6: https://pastebin.com/hvX02ZbY

As we can see from that, `Installation Information` is "any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a
modified version of its Corresponding Source". So essentially, any barriers
keeping users from installing a source or object version of a project.

A few interesting clauses that may be relevant:

  * If neither you or any other 3rd party have the right to install
software on the `User Product`, you may not have to relinquish Installation
Information (for example, if you wrote a ROM-space program, or perhaps a
kernel).
  * You must publish Installation Information publicly, and it must not
require any passwords/keys/etc to read.
  * As with most GPL software, there is no guarantee of merchantability,
warranty, etc.
  * It *sounds* (not concretely) like installation instructions do not have
to support all platforms. For example, GMP is known to be extremely hard to
compile on Windows (you have to use MINGW/CYGWIN, or use something like
MPIR), and so installation instructions for Windows may be missing or
incomplete.

If you make GMP optional (even though it is slow without it) or detected, I
am confident that not including installation instructions for your
program/library would be fine.

Although, I do ask, do you not want to share installation instructions? If
you are fine with sharing them, I think doing that would be easiest.

If you still don't want to share, I'll need a bit more details about your
project.

What is your project: is it a library, or a application/program (which is
an executable)?


​Thanks,

~
Cade Brown
Lead Programmer For L&N STEMpunks FRC#3966
chemicaldevelopment.us

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Cade Brown <brown.cade at gmail.com> wrote:

> Karthik,
>
> The legality of linking and including LGPL code is much more 'lawyer
> oriented' for version 3, so I understand your confusion.
>
> Using https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html and
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html , I can see that you only
> need to include `Installation Information` if the GPL section 6 requires
> you too. Here is the relevant portions from GPL3, section 6:
> https://pastebin.com/hvX02ZbY
>
> As we can see from that, `Installation Information` is "any methods,
> procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
> and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a
> modified version of its Corresponding Source". So essentially, any barriers
> keeping users from installing a source or object version of a project.
>
> A few interesting clauses that may be relevant:
>
>   * If neither you or any other 3rd party have the right to install
> software on the `User Product`, you may not have to relinquish Installation
> Information (for example, if you wrote a ROM-space program, or perhaps a
> kernel).
>   * You must publish Installation Information publicly, and it must not
> require any passwords/keys/etc to read.
>   * As with most GPL software, there is no guarantee of merchantability,
> warranty, etc.
>   * It *sounds* (not concretely) like installation instructions do not
> have to support all platforms. For example, GMP is known to be extremely
> hard to compile on Windows (you have to use MINGW/CYGWIN, or use something
> like MPIR), and so installation instructions for Windows may be missing or
> incomplete.
>
> If you make GMP optional (even though it is slow without it) or detected,
> I am confident that not including installation instructions for your
> program/library would be fine.
>
> Although, I do ask, do you not want to share installation instructions? If
> you are fine with sharing them, I think doing that would be easiest.
>
> If you still don't want to share, I'll need a bit more details about your
> project.
>
> What is your project: is it a library, or a application/program (which is
> an executable)?
>
>
> ​Thanks,
>
> ~
> Cade Brown
> Lead Programmer For L&N STEMpunks FRC#3966
> chemicaldevelopment.us
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Karthik Narayanan <karthikn82 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Cade ,
>>
>> We are using https://bitbucket.org/a30151( an implementation of Mikey
>> Sakke )  which is an LGPL2.1
>> But this inturn uses GMP . We currently have GMP as a dynamically linked
>> object. I have tried the option of removing GMP , but obviously thats
>> making the decryption pretty slow.
>> I know LGPL2.1 can be used. But LGPL3.1 seems to be a bit different as
>> they say we need to provide the "Installation information " . Hence I am
>> trying to understand what this means, and if its possible to get GMP
>> commercial license in the worst case.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Karthik
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Cade Brown <brown.cade at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Karthik,
>>>
>>> How does the company use GMP? Please give details, such as does their
>>> code link against GMP libraries, is GMP support optional, etc
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> ~
>>> Cade Brown
>>> Lead Programmer For L&N STEMpunks FRC#3966
>>> chemicaldevelopment.us
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Karthik Narayanan <karthikn82 at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All ,
>>>> Hope this is the right forum to ask about LGPL3 license of GMP.
>>>> Just wanted to know if any company uses  GMP , is it mandatory that they
>>>> have to provide the Installation information ?
>>>> The way I understand Installation information here would be the signing
>>>> key
>>>> of an app ( if the app uses GMP .) .
>>>>
>>>> Incase I messaged a wrong forum, would really appreciate if you could
>>>> point
>>>> to the right GMP group.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Karthik
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gmp-discuss mailing list
>>>> gmp-discuss at gmplib.org
>>>> https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>