Paul Eggert wrote:
> On the other hand, it's meant as a replacement for
> glibc code that is LGPLed. Fellow gnulibers, do we have a general
> policy for this sort of thing? If not, I'm inclined to LGPL it.
My guideline for deciding whether something can be LGPLed is:
1) Does the GNU project already have an LGPLed implementation of it
somewhere? (Or is the GNOME project threatening to write one?)
2) Does the code use functionality typical for an application and atypical
for library use? Such as xmalloc(), error(), ...
time_r is even more in the "library" camp, because it's more important
for a library to be MT-safe than for an application.
Bruno
_______________________________________________
bug-gnulib mailing list
bug-gnulib@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
