Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I understand that you want to keep the 'openat' module under GPL.
Yes.
> But reverting Paul's change fixes the problem. Why should it be a shame?
> It's just 15 lines of code.
I find it a shame that due to licensing constraints, we end
up making the
Hi Jim,
I haven't seen progress on this topic for a week, so permit me to jump in.
> FYI, it happened two months ago, with this change:
>
> http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a195113bbb3
>
> 2007-10-17 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Modify glob.c to us
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Yoann Vandoorselaere on 12/17/2007 3:18 AM:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The glob module is licensed under LGPLv2+, and was previously compatible
>> with the module it depended on.
>>
>> I wanted to perform an update today, but there has been changes to the
>> g
Yoann Vandoorselaere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The glob module is licensed under LGPLv2+, and was previously compatible
> with the module it depended on.
>
> I wanted to perform an update today, but there has been changes to the
> glob module that make it depend on non LGPL modules:
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Yoann Vandoorselaere on 12/17/2007 3:18 AM:
> Hi,
>
> The glob module is licensed under LGPLv2+, and was previously compatible
> with the module it depended on.
>
> I wanted to perform an update today, but there has been changes to the
Hi,
The glob module is licensed under LGPLv2+, and was previously compatible
with the module it depended on.
I wanted to perform an update today, but there has been changes to the
glob module that make it depend on non LGPL modules:
- openat
- save-cwd
- chown
- d-ino
- exit
- exitfail
-
