Marco Bodrato bodrato at
Wed Sep 26 07:11:14 UTC 2018

Il Ven, 21 Settembre 2018 6:19 pm, Mike Lodder ha scritto:
> I write crypto code that uses big number libraries and would like to adopt
> GMP but cannot because it was GPL and is now LGPL. While LGPL is less of a
> problem, its limits adoption for what we want to use it for.

Let's say it was LGPL and is now also GPL2+.

LGPL is highly permissive, isn't it? Any code (with no requirements) can
link to the compiled library, and you can distribute the library if you
agree to share, with the people you give the library to, the freedom you

If, on the other side, there are limitations that force your project to be
incompatible with LGPL3... well, I'd suggest you to ask for a change on
that other side. Did you try that?

> We are looking to use Libsnark <> for
> zero-knowledge proofs. Libsnark uses GMP. Libsnark is licensed under MIT.

> Would you consider also licensing GMP using Apache 2.0?

GPL3 and LGPL3 already are compatible with MIT and Apache2, aren't they?

> I believe with this license change that adoption of GMP will be
> even greater.

Well, but the Apache 2.0 licence "include certain patent termination and
indemnification provisions"... Maybe we (GMP and your project) should use
even another licence to enlarge the adoption of our code also to people
that will cover with a patent their "contributions", should we?

I personally hope that the code I wrote will be covered with copyleft
licences only also in the future.



More information about the gmp-discuss mailing list