Everything

php

Intention to move mcrypt to PECL

php.internals

Leigh

9 years ago

Hello list,

It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)

I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
been migrated, however we voted to move it there.

Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
next few days.

Cheers,

Leigh.

Derick Rethans

9 years ago

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Leigh wrote:

> Hello list,
>
> It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
> that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
>
> I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
> been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
>
> Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
> next few days.

It should be migrated properly, and also to GIT. I prefer that it is
released with my username as "lead", as I wrote a big deal of it.

cheers,
Derick

Leigh

9 years ago

On 5 October 2016 at 20:11, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> It should be migrated properly, and also to GIT. I prefer that it is
> released with my username as "lead", as I wrote a big deal of it.
>
> cheers,
> Derick

I'm not sure what you mean by "properly", what steps do you think I'll
miss out? (My intention was always to ask for a php.net git repo for
it)

Of course you (and Sascha) should be listed as lead (I'll leave the
"active" flags up to you - not sure if this is supposed to mean in
general, or on the extension itself), I have little interest in
maintaining this extension myself.

My motivation is to remove it from master as soon as possible, so
those testing or experimenting with future releases get an early
indication of what is coming, rather than it happening at 7.2 beta and
people only getting a couple of months. However the RFC said remove
and move to PECL, so I am trying to follow what we agreed on, and get
it moved to PECL prior to deleting it from master.

Would you like to handle this migration yourself?

Leigh

9 years ago

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 at 20:11 Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> It should be migrated properly, and also to GIT.
>

Hi Ferenc,

Can you create a php.net hosted git repository for this (I guess under the
pecl/security namespace), and grant karma to leigh@php.net for it.

Sorry for picking on you personally. I don't know who else can do this :)

Cheers,

Leigh.

Ferenc Kovacs

9 years ago

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 at 20:11 Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
>
>> It should be migrated properly, and also to GIT.
>>
>
> Hi Ferenc,
>
> Can you create a php.net hosted git repository for this (I guess under
> the pecl/security namespace), and grant karma to leigh@php.net for it.
>
> Sorry for picking on you personally. I don't know who else can do this :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Leigh.
>
>
>

Hi,

I've just created the http://git.php.net/?p=pecl/encryption/mcrypt.git
repository (I think encryption was a better category as we already have
scrypt, libsodium and mcrypt_filter there).
Leigh already had karma for pecl/*, let me know if you need help with
creating the package or importing the source to the repo (
https://help.github.com/articles/splitting-a-subfolder-out-into-a-new-repository/
if you want to keep the history).

--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Leigh

9 years ago

Ok rookie PECL mistake here.

I was adding Derick and Sascha as leads (as they were the original leads)
and demoting myself to helper (not knowing it was required to further
maintain the package). So I have locked myself out :)

Could you add me back as a lead to the pecl package please, so I can upload
the release tarball.

Cheers,

Leigh

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, 00:52 Ferenc Kovacs, <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:

Derick Rethans

9 years ago

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, Leigh wrote:

> Ok rookie PECL mistake here.
>
> I was adding Derick and Sascha as leads (as they were the original leads)
> and demoting myself to helper (not knowing it was required to further
> maintain the package). So I have locked myself out :)
>
> Could you add me back as a lead to the pecl package please, so I can upload
> the release tarball.

Done :-) Make sure you keep it in the package.xml too, otherwise it gets
reset again.

cheers,
Derick

--
https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug

Pierre Joye

9 years ago

hi Leigh,

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello list,
>
> It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
> that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
>
> I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
> been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
>
> Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
> next few days.

I am not sure to follow.

We rejected to move it out of the core for 7.0. This RFC is about
deprecation for 7.1.

As much as I want to kill this beast as soon as possible, I do not
think we can kill it in 7.x but 8.x. It is also why I was pushing so
hard to kill it in 7.0, knowing that this will be tried again and
sadly for 7.x.

Cheers,
Pierre

Davey

9 years ago

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

> hi Leigh,
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
> > that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
> > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
> >
> > I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
> > been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
> >
> > Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
> > next few days.
>
> I am not sure to follow.
>
> We rejected to move it out of the core for 7.0. This RFC is about
> deprecation for 7.1.
>
> As much as I want to kill this beast as soon as possible, I do not
> think we can kill it in 7.x but 8.x. It is also why I was pushing so
> hard to kill it in 7.0, knowing that this will be tried again and
> sadly for 7.x.

From the RFC:

> In PHP 7.1+1 (be it 7.2 or 8.0), the crypt extension will be moved out of

core and into PECL

and

> Vote “Yes” to raise an E_DEPRECATED notice in PHP 7.1 when any crypt

function is used and to remove the extension from core in 7.1+1.

So, per the RFC, moving to PECL in 7.2 is correct.

- Davey

Pierre Joye

9 years ago

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Davey Shafik <davey@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> hi Leigh,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello list,
>> >
>> > It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
>> > that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
>> > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
>> >
>> > I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
>> > been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
>> >
>> > Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
>> > next few days.
>>
>> I am not sure to follow.
>>
>> We rejected to move it out of the core for 7.0. This RFC is about
>> deprecation for 7.1.
>>
>> As much as I want to kill this beast as soon as possible, I do not
>> think we can kill it in 7.x but 8.x. It is also why I was pushing so
>> hard to kill it in 7.0, knowing that this will be tried again and
>> sadly for 7.x.
>
>
> From the RFC:
>
>> In PHP 7.1+1 (be it 7.2 or 8.0), the crypt extension will be moved out of
>> core and into PECL
>
> and
>
>> Vote “Yes” to raise an E_DEPRECATED notice in PHP 7.1 when any crypt
>> function is used and to remove the extension from core in 7.1+1.
>
> So, per the RFC, moving to PECL in 7.2 is correct.

"In PHP 7.1+1 (be it 7.2 or 8.0),"

I took it as 8, for the reason explained earlier.

--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org

Nikita Popov

9 years ago

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Davey Shafik <davey@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hi Leigh,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello list,
> > >
> > > It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
> > > that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
> > > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
> > >
> > > I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
> > > been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
> > >
> > > Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
> > > next few days.
> >
> > I am not sure to follow.
> >
> > We rejected to move it out of the core for 7.0. This RFC is about
> > deprecation for 7.1.
> >
> > As much as I want to kill this beast as soon as possible, I do not
> > think we can kill it in 7.x but 8.x. It is also why I was pushing so
> > hard to kill it in 7.0, knowing that this will be tried again and
> > sadly for 7.x.
>
>
> From the RFC:
>
> > In PHP 7.1+1 (be it 7.2 or 8.0), the crypt extension will be moved out of
> core and into PECL
>
> and
>
> > Vote “Yes” to raise an E_DEPRECATED notice in PHP 7.1 when any crypt
> function is used and to remove the extension from core in 7.1+1.
>
> So, per the RFC, moving to PECL in 7.2 is correct.
>
> - Davey
>

Furthermore the release process RFC *explicitly* allows moving extensions
to PECL in minor versions.

Nikita

Pierre Joye

9 years ago

On Oct 6, 2016 3:41 PM, "Nikita Popov" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Davey Shafik <davey@php.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > hi Leigh,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Hello list,
>> > >
>> > > It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
>> > > that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
>> > > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
>> > >
>> > > I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
>> > > been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
>> > >
>> > > Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
>> > > next few days.
>> >
>> > I am not sure to follow.
>> >
>> > We rejected to move it out of the core for 7.0. This RFC is about
>> > deprecation for 7.1.
>> >
>> > As much as I want to kill this beast as soon as possible, I do not
>> > think we can kill it in 7.x but 8.x. It is also why I was pushing so
>> > hard to kill it in 7.0, knowing that this will be tried again and
>> > sadly for 7.x.
>>
>>
>> From the RFC:
>>
>> > In PHP 7.1+1 (be it 7.2 or 8.0), the crypt extension will be moved out

of

>> core and into PECL
>>
>> and
>>
>> > Vote “Yes” to raise an E_DEPRECATED notice in PHP 7.1 when any crypt
>> function is used and to remove the extension from core in 7.1+1.
>>
>> So, per the RFC, moving to PECL in 7.2 is correct.
>>
>> - Davey
>
>
> Furthermore the release process RFC *explicitly* allows moving extensions

to PECL in minor versions.

I am *not* (I can emphasize text too ;) it is not allowed.

What I am saying is why we refused to do it in 7.0 and then the same go all
in for 7.2. That makes no sense to me and it is something we should figure
out for 8 (exts or behaviors).

Remi Collet

9 years ago

Le 06/10/2016 à 10:45, Pierre Joye a écrit :

> On Oct 6, 2016 3:41 PM, "Nikita Popov" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Davey Shafik <davey@php.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi Leigh,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hello list,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
>>>>> that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
>>>>> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
>>>>> been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
>>>>> next few days.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure to follow.
>>>>
>>>> We rejected to move it out of the core for 7.0. This RFC is about
>>>> deprecation for 7.1.
>>>>
>>>> As much as I want to kill this beast as soon as possible, I do not
>>>> think we can kill it in 7.x but 8.x. It is also why I was pushing so
>>>> hard to kill it in 7.0, knowing that this will be tried again and
>>>> sadly for 7.x.
>>>
>>>
>>> From the RFC:
>>>
>>>> In PHP 7.1+1 (be it 7.2 or 8.0), the crypt extension will be moved out
> of
>>> core and into PECL
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>> Vote “Yes” to raise an E_DEPRECATED notice in PHP 7.1 when any crypt
>>> function is used and to remove the extension from core in 7.1+1.
>>>
>>> So, per the RFC, moving to PECL in 7.2 is correct.
>>>
>>> - Davey
>>
>>
>> Furthermore the release process RFC *explicitly* allows moving extensions
> to PECL in minor versions.
>
> I am *not* (I can emphasize text too ;) it is not allowed.
>
> What I am saying is why we refused to do it in 7.0 and then the same go all
> in for 7.2. That makes no sense to me and it is something we should figure
> out for 8 (exts or behaviors).
>

Checking the https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess

x.y.z to x.y+1.z  (so 7.2)
* Extensions support can be ended (moved to pecl)

This will not be a major issue, as most people will be able to find this
extension in the various binary distribution.

This is important to give information about this extension being
unsupported, as relying on a dead project.


Remi.

Jakub Zelenka

9 years ago

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello list,
>
> It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
> that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
>
> I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
> been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
>
> Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
> next few days.
>
>

I don't think it can be added to PECL as it breaks its licensing rules
(mcrypt is GPL licensed):


- Note: wrappers for GPL (all versions) or LGPLv3 libraries will not be
accepted. Wrappers for libraries licensed under LGPLv2 are however allowed
while being discouraged.

See https://pecl.php.net/account-request.php

Cheers

Jakub

Lester Caine

9 years ago

On 06/10/16 11:12, Jakub Zelenka wrote:

> I don't think it can be added to PECL as it breaks its licensing rules
> (mcrypt is GPL licensed):

It is already an established component in PHP and while it's use has
been discouraged for a long time, simply switching it off will break a
lot of legacy applications. It is not simply a matter of 'changing to a
more modern alternative'. If an application has data stored by mcrypt,
and it was a popular method of encoding passwords, then any migration
path is going to need to provide a method of re-encoding that data while
mcrypt is still available. There needs to be a proper migration guide to
identify the secondary effects of pulling it although as has been
indicated, many distributions will simply build it from PECL and carry
on providing it, so the move only really impacts people who build their
own installations ... and even there it's a simple exercise to restore
anything relegated to the second level of code storage.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

Daniel Morris

9 years ago

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016, at 11:41 AM, Lester Caine wrote:

> It is already an established component in PHP and while it's use has
> been discouraged for a long time, simply switching it off will break a
> lot of legacy applications.

How many applications that are not following standard security
guidelines are not following basic security principles? It doesn't
matter if it's an established component, a vulnerability is a
vulnerability. BC shouldn't matter; especially for those who are not
willing to patch their applications to use the latest information we
have available to us.

You either keep up with changes; or you don't. New majors, and even
minors (if we're ignoring semantic versioning) should be able to change
something, it should be up to the maintainers of an application to
decide whether it's time to upgrade or not, internals shouldn't manage
that for you.

If you're using Composer, you can lock your dependencies to prevent your
application from breaking. If you're up to date with the latest
information, you can choose to evolve.

Mcrypt, now (I think) belongs in PECL, I will be looking at (a major)
code repository over the next few weeks and looking to provide a simple
upgrade path.

DM

Leigh

9 years ago

On 6 October 2016 at 11:12, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello list,
>>
>> It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
>> that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
>> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
>>
>> I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
>> been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
>>
>> Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
>> next few days.
>>
>
> I don't think it can be added to PECL as it breaks its licensing rules
> (mcrypt is GPL licensed):
>
> Note: wrappers for GPL (all versions) or LGPLv3 libraries will not be
> accepted. Wrappers for libraries licensed under LGPLv2 are however allowed
> while being discouraged.
>
> See https://pecl.php.net/account-request.php
>
> Cheers
>
> Jakub
>

Interesting, thanks for that.

Ferenc Kovacs

9 years ago

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello list,
> >
> > It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
> > that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
> > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
> >
> > I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
> > been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
> >
> > Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
> > next few days.
> >
> >
> I don't think it can be added to PECL as it breaks its licensing rules
> (mcrypt is GPL licensed):
>
>
>    - Note: wrappers for GPL (all versions) or LGPLv3 libraries will not be
>    accepted. Wrappers for libraries licensed under LGPLv2 are however
> allowed
>    while being discouraged.
>
> See https://pecl.php.net/account-request.php
>
> Cheers
>
> Jakub
>

AFAIK mcrypt is gpl, libmcrypt (wrapped by our mcrypt ext) is lgpl so it
would be fine for pecl.

--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Leigh

9 years ago

On 6 October 2016 at 13:35, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello list,
>> >
>> > It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
>> > that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
>> > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
>> >
>> > I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
>> > been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
>> >
>> > Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
>> > next few days.
>> >
>> >
>> I don't think it can be added to PECL as it breaks its licensing rules
>> (mcrypt is GPL licensed):
>>
>>
>>    - Note: wrappers for GPL (all versions) or LGPLv3 libraries will not be
>>    accepted. Wrappers for libraries licensed under LGPLv2 are however
>> allowed
>>    while being discouraged.
>>
>> See https://pecl.php.net/account-request.php
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jakub
>
>
> AFAIK mcrypt is gpl, libmcrypt (wrapped by our mcrypt ext) is lgpl so it
> would be fine for pecl.
>
> --
> Ferenc Kovács
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

http://mcrypt.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mcrypt/libmcrypt/COPYING.LIB?revision=1.1.1.1&view=markup

LGPLv2

Jakub Zelenka

9 years ago

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 October 2016 at 13:35, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hello list,
> >> >
> >> > It is my intention to create a new PECL package for ext/mcrypt, so
> >> > that it can be removed from master as per the RFC
> >> > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral)
> >> >
> >> > I do not expect there to be any updates to the extension after it has
> >> > been migrated, however we voted to move it there.
> >> >
> >> > Any objections/comments? If not I'll apply for my PECL account in the
> >> > next few days.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I don't think it can be added to PECL as it breaks its licensing rules
> >> (mcrypt is GPL licensed):
> >>
> >>
> >>    - Note: wrappers for GPL (all versions) or LGPLv3 libraries will not
> be
> >>    accepted. Wrappers for libraries licensed under LGPLv2 are however
> >> allowed
> >>    while being discouraged.
> >>
> >> See https://pecl.php.net/account-request.php
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Jakub
> >
> >
> > AFAIK mcrypt is gpl, libmcrypt (wrapped by our mcrypt ext) is lgpl so it
> > would be fine for pecl.
> >
> > --
> > Ferenc Kovács
> > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
>
> http://mcrypt.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mcrypt/libmcrypt/
> COPYING.LIB?revision=1.1.1.1&view=markup
>
> LGPLv2
>

Looks like copying says LGPLv2 but the files seems to be under GPLv2. See
for example

http://mcrypt.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mcrypt/libmcrypt/lib/mcrypt.h.in?view=markup

That's why I thought it's GPL. Not sure what's more important though...

Cheers

Jakub

Dan Ackroyd

9 years ago

> On 6 Oct 2016, at 13:48, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:
>
> Looks like copying says LGPLv2 but the files seems to be under GPLv2. See
> for example
>
> http://mcrypt.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mcrypt/libmcrypt/lib/mcrypt.h.in?view=markup

Er, unless i'm missing what you mean that file says "Library General Public License" aka LGPL.


cheers
Dan

Jakub Zelenka

9 years ago

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On 6 Oct 2016, at 13:48, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:
> >
> > Looks like copying says LGPLv2 but the files seems to be under GPLv2. See
> > for example
> >
> > http://mcrypt.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mcrypt/libmcrypt/
> lib/mcrypt.h.in?view=markup
>
> Er, unless i'm missing what you mean that file says "Library General
> Public License" aka LGPL.
>
>

Ah. I'm such an idiot. :) Sorry! Ignore me. Should be fine then.