Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Can you agree to this license change (nearly equivalent to what Bastien
> > asked for)?
>
> Yes, that's fine.
Thanks. I pushed the license change.
Bruno
On 4/11/20 2:46 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Paul,
Can you agree to this license change (nearly equivalent to what Bastien
asked for)?
Yes, that's fine.
Paul,
Can you agree to this license change (nearly equivalent to what Bastien
asked for)?
> diff --git a/modules/explicit_bzero b/modules/explicit_bzero
> index 81d41d1..08fd3e4 100644
> --- a/modules/explicit_bzero
> +++ b/modules/explicit_bzero
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Include:
>
>
> License:
>
Hi Florian,
> > Could be possible to relicence this module under dual GPL2+ LGPL3 licence?
> >
> > Code is from glibc thus LGPL2+ and it will be useful for some program
> > like fwknop
>
> Isn't this implied by LGPL2+?
Yes, GPLv2+_or_LGPLv3+ is a weaker license than LGPLv2+.
But the module is c
* Bastien ROUCARIES:
> Could be possible to relicence this module under dual GPL2+ LGPL3 licence?
>
> Code is from glibc thus LGPL2+ and it will be useful for some program
> like fwknop
Isn't this implied by LGPL2+?
Thanks,
Florian
Hi,
Could be possible to relicence this module under dual GPL2+ LGPL3 licence?
Code is from glibc thus LGPL2+ and it will be useful for some program
like fwknop
Bastien
