Re: posix_spawn* license change request

Eric Blake wrote: > >> For what package is this? > > netcf, which is currently one of the libraries directly linked into the > LGPLv2+ libvirt. And you have already explained that libvirt needs to stay LGPLv2+, in

Re: posix_spawn* license change request

On 10/28/2010 01:42 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 10/28/2010 12:40 PM, Adam Stokes wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:34:11 +0200 >> Bruno Haible wrote: >> >>> Hi Adam, >>> Is it possible to have posix_spawn* licenses relaxed to LGPLv2+? >>> >>> For what package is this? > > netcf, which is curre

Re: posix_spawn* license change request

On 10/28/2010 12:40 PM, Adam Stokes wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:34:11 +0200 > Bruno Haible wrote: > >> Hi Adam, >> >>> Is it possible to have posix_spawn* licenses relaxed to LGPLv2+? >> >> For what package is this? netcf, which is currently one of the libraries directly linked into the LGPL

Re: posix_spawn* license change request

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:40:39 -0400 Adam Stokes wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:34:11 +0200 > Bruno Haible wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > > Is it possible to have posix_spawn* licenses relaxed to LGPLv2+? > > > > For what package is this? > > > > Have you considered releasing this package unde

Re: posix_spawn* license change request

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:34:11 +0200 Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Adam, > > > Is it possible to have posix_spawn* licenses relaxed to LGPLv2+? > > For what package is this? > > Have you considered releasing this package under LGPLv3+ instead of > LGPLv2+? You know about the advantages of GPLv3+ and

Re: posix_spawn* license change request

Hi Adam, > Is it possible to have posix_spawn* licenses relaxed to LGPLv2+? For what package is this? Have you considered releasing this package under LGPLv3+ instead of LGPLv2+? You know about the advantages of GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ versus version 2:

posix_spawn* license change request

Hi Bruno, Is it possible to have posix_spawn* licenses relaxed to LGPLv2+? Thank you, Adam