I'm fine relicensing hash, I don't recall doing anything significant in it.
/Simon Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> skrev: >On 08/28/2013 11:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> libguestfs (an LGPLv2+ library) uses the 'hash' module, which turns >> out to be "GPL". >> >> Actually this happened because we started to use it in a separate >> GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in >the >> core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking >> the license of 'hash'. >> >> We'd therefore like to request that 'hash' is relicensed as LGPLv2+. >> If this is not possible, we will have to rewrite the code, probably >> implementing our own hash table, which would be a shame because hash >> works well for our needs. >> >> Notes: >> >> - the code doesn't appear to call exit (it does call abort), and so >> seems to be suitable for a library >> >> - hash-pjw which we also use is already licensed as LGPLv2+ >> >> - it looks like the original author was Jim Meyering (CC'd) > >Adding all other authors based on git history, to try and spur this >along (Paul, Simon, Bruno, and myself). I give consent for the patches >I've made. > >> >> - the dependencies are all LGPLv2+ > >The fact that Bruno has been notably silent on this list for several >months may be a problem; we have several outstanding requests for a >looser license on these and other modules where Bruno has made >non-trivial contributions. It may be time to ask rms if the FSF can do >the relicensing, rather than our current policy of tracking down all >contributors and asking them to use their grant-back clause of their >FSF >copyright assignment as our backdoor of not having to involve the FSF.
