On Friday 18 March 2016 09:38:30 Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 03/18/2016 09:08 AM, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > progname is GPL 3+, which means it cannot be used in the main library
> > (which is LGPL 2) without changing the license of the resulting work.
>
> I expect this is because it was intended to be u
On 03/18/2016 09:08 AM, Pino Toscano wrote:
progname is GPL 3+, which means it cannot be used in the main library
(which is LGPL 2) without changing the license of the resulting work.
I expect this is because it was intended to be used only by programs,
not by libraries, so GPL was appropriate
On 03/18/2016 09:47 AM, Pino Toscano wrote:
That works for me too, both for license and API -- but should progname
be rewritten (breaking users of it), or add a new getprogname module?
How about if we (1) add a new getprogname module, (2) modify progname to
use it (without breaking progname's AP
On 03/18/2016 10:10 AM, Pino Toscano wrote:
I fully agree with your (1) and (3), as they match what I also proposed
earlier.
Regarding (2), I'm not sure that a getprogname()-like interface could
work with the existing progname. I'd put that as second step for now,
and if it turns out to not wor
On Friday 18 March 2016 09:52:08 Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 03/18/2016 09:47 AM, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > That works for me too, both for license and API -- but should progname
> > be rewritten (breaking users of it), or add a new getprogname module?
> How about if we (1) add a new getprogname module,
