This isn't a code bug, but a question about licensing with regards to the external dependencies. NanoSDK and msquic are both licensed as MIT. wolfSSL is licensed as GPL2 (not LGPL2) though. Assuming you link wolfSSL via nng-wolfssl (which itself is GPL3), doesn't that create a conflict with the licenses, basically causing everything to have to follow the tighter restrictions of GPL2? Is it possible for NanoSDK to support SSL/TLS without needing wolfSSL?
Describe the bug
This isn't a code bug, but a question about licensing with regards to the external dependencies. NanoSDK and msquic are both licensed as MIT. wolfSSL is licensed as GPL2 (not LGPL2) though. Assuming you link wolfSSL via nng-wolfssl (which itself is GPL3), doesn't that create a conflict with the licenses, basically causing everything to have to follow the tighter restrictions of GPL2? Is it possible for NanoSDK to support SSL/TLS without needing wolfSSL?