Sequoia PGP is now LGPL 2.0
I know that a few years ago there was some discussion about which license to choose, with LGPL and MPLv2 being two strong contenders, and it was noted (by Neal himself actually) that MPLv2 is much easier to use when static linking (as is the norm in the Rust community).<p>Why was LGPL chosen instead? The LGPL requires that all applications that consume it as a static library provide the tools to re-link the binary against modified forms [0], which seems incredibly problematic to manage with the Rust toolchain.<p>I like the idea behind the LGPL conceptually, but in practice the LGPL is strongly tied to the way Linux applications and libraries were developed in the 90s and 2000s - namely, in C, with dependencies that are generally dynamically linked, with C-like toolchains that directly expose all of the intermediate object files.  It just doesn&#x27;t make a whole lot of sense for any software outside of that bubble.<p>[0] www.gnu.org&#x2F;licenses&#x2F;gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic