[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes: > [lessergnulib] > > I remember this discussion (somewhat), but I was and am a bit puzzled. > Is the only purpose is to make the functionality available under the > LGPL?
Mostly, yes. I had some additional requirements, such as that all code had to be thread safe and that gettext should be an optional dependency. But those things seem to be possible to solve within gnulib. Actually, even the license problems I had was possible to solve within gnulib. > It seems rather pedantic and weird to say "routine X is only licensed > under the GPL", force Simon or whoever to spend time writing an > alternate implementation of X under the LGPL, and then throw away either > the old GPL or new LGPL code in order to have a single source again. Right. I realized it was better to work within gnulib to change the license on the modules I actually needed. This was successful for several modules. Currently, I think the only module I still use from lessergnulib is getline. I recall making a few stabs at trying to make it available under LGPL within gnulib, but there was probably too much fine details and I didn't finish it. I'll work on it again eventually. Thanks, Simon _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
