On 07/19/2013 11:24 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> Hello,
> Would it be possible that the following modules are licensed under
> LGPLv2.1+ instead of LGPLv3+? They are (conditionally) used by the
> gnutls library and would be nice if we could avoid the LGPLv3+ switch.
>
> opendir
> readdir
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,
http://lwn.net/Articles/436012/ documents that many distros
are now preferring to use /run rather than /var/run for
storage of pid files and other per-process temporary files
that must not be cleaned out during arbitrary TMPDIR sweeps.
As such, the GNU Coding Standards were recently changed to
reco
Eric Blake wrote:
> 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.
It wouldn't hur
I'm fine relicensing hash, I don't recall doing anything significant in it.
/Simon
Eric Blake 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 u
[dropping libguestfs]
On 09/12/2013 10:51 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> 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 assig
On 09/12/13 10:05, Eric Blake wrote:
> The function with the license being changed is already available on a
> GNU system under the looser license (for example, any gnulib function
> that is also present in glibc).
A nit: I'd change "the looser" to "a looser". It should be OK, for
example, for us
