Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> What does 'LGPL' mean? v2.1+ or v3.0?
>>
>> The day we switch gnulib's major part to v3.0, it will mean LGPLv3+.
>
> Ok.
>
>>> The above are/may be needed by
>>> GnuTLS, so I think it would be useful if the remain LGPLv2.1+.
>>
>> Then please mark the
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> > Note that the following modules are not yet marked as LGPLv2+. I don't know
>> > if you intended it like this.
>> > crypto/arcfour:LGPL
>> > crypto/arctwo:LGPL
>> > crypto/hmac-md5:LGPL
>> > crypto/hmac-sha1:LGPL
>> >
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > Note that the following modules are not yet marked as LGPLv2+. I don't know
> > if you intended it like this.
> > crypto/arcfour:LGPL
> > crypto/arctwo:LGPL
> > crypto/hmac-md5:LGPL
> > crypto/hmac-sha1:LGPL
> > crypto/md5:LGPL
> > crypto/rijndael:LGPL
> > c
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The week is over. I'm marking the modules that you specified as LGPLv2+.
> Except the tests, because they can be under GPL without problems, since they
> are not installed into libraries.
Thanks!
> Note that the following modules are not yet marked as L
Simon Josefsson wrote two weeks ago:
> I need the following modules to be usable in a LGPLv2 project:
>
> Libidn: gettext-h stdint striconv strverscmp
> Gsasl: base64 crypto/gc crypto/gc-hmac-md5 crypto/gc-hmac-md5-tests
> crypto/gc-md5 crypto/gc-md5-tests crypto/gc-random crypto/gc-tests
> getl
Ludovic Courtès asked:
> I don't yet have a precise list of the modules that we'll need, but can
> we reasonably assume that Gnulib will accommodate our needs?
Yes, because guile is a GNU project.
Bruno
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I don't yet have a precise list of the modules that we'll need, but can
> we reasonably assume that Gnulib will accommodate our needs?
Yes, if the FSF comes out with an LGPLv2.5, we'll make sure you can
use gnulib in LPGLv2.5 packages.
Hi,
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>> don't you think this could be a show stopper to early GnuLib adopters?
>
> No, I don't think so. Projects which have been using already cannot have
> missed the long thread here; projects which will adopt it in the futu
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The rest of the v3 patch is
> kinda large and is still being debugged.
An update on this. Part of the debugging is that we are awaiting some
policy clarifications from the FSF on the LGPLv2.1 - LPGLv3 upgrade.
Of course we support the move to v3 and inte
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't been following whether glibc is
> going to be upgraded to LGPLv3 or not. Will it?
Yes. That has started to happen already; the v2-only files were
updated to say v2-or-later on July 14. The rest of the v3 patch is
kinda large and is still
Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> don't you think this could be a show stopper to early GnuLib adopters?
No, I don't think so. Projects which have been using already cannot have
missed the long thread here; projects which will adopt it in the future
will see that there is no problem with the first few
Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> Here is the patch for the above module,
Thanks. I applied it, plus the same on a few dependencies that you missed:
lseek (needed by fseeko) and getdelim (needed by getline).
2007-07-16 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* modules/lseek (License): Use the syn
Le lundi 16 juillet 2007 à 10:14 +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere a écrit :
> Le lundi 16 juillet 2007 à 09:33 +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere a écrit :
> > Le dimanche 15 juillet 2007 à 16:59 +0200, Bruno Haible a écrit :
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > There was no objection when I said that: the majority of g
Le lundi 16 juillet 2007 à 11:28 +0200, Bruno Haible a écrit :
> Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > Even if we provide a list of modules we use doesn't mean that we're not
> > going to need new module tomorrow, or that another library project
> > licensed under GPLv2 will need that module.
>
> I beli
Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> Even if we provide a list of modules we use doesn't mean that we're not
> going to need new module tomorrow, or that another library project
> licensed under GPLv2 will need that module.
I believe we can handle this on demand, like we did in the past. gnulib-tool
will
Le lundi 16 juillet 2007 à 09:33 +0200, Yoann Vandoorselaere a écrit :
> Le dimanche 15 juillet 2007 à 16:59 +0200, Bruno Haible a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There was no objection when I said that: the majority of gnulib modules will
> > migrate from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ and from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+.
Le dimanche 15 juillet 2007 à 16:59 +0200, Bruno Haible a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> There was no objection when I said that: the majority of gnulib modules will
> migrate from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ and from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+. So I assume we can
> go for it in a few days?
For the reasons I mentioned earli
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> There was no objection when I said that: the majority of gnulib modules will
> migrate from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ and from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+. So I assume we can
> go for it in a few days?
>
> Before that, please mark the modules that you want to s
Hi Bruno,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 12:04:36AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > libltdl uses the argz module. I assume this is what I should apply then?
>
> Yes, please.
Applied.
Thanks!
Ralf
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> libltdl uses the argz module. I assume this is what I should apply then?
Yes, please.
Bruno
Hello,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 04:59:02PM CEST:
>
> There was no objection when I said that: the majority of gnulib modules will
> migrate from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ and from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+. So I assume we can
> go for it in a few days?
>
> Before that, please mark the module
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was no objection when I said that: the majority of gnulib modules will
> migrate from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ and from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+. So I assume we can
> go for it in a few days?
No objection here.
On a related note, I've already don that for everythi
Hi all,
There was no objection when I said that: the majority of gnulib modules will
migrate from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ and from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+. So I assume we can
go for it in a few days?
Before that, please mark the modules that you want to stay at the current
license. We can also revert a licen
23 matches
Mail list logo
