Re: gnulib's licensing

2011-05-04 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 05/04/2011 02:55 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: libposix is intended to be under LGPL, but we have some way to go (agreements to get from the authors) for some modules: FWIW, I'm okay with LGPL for the mathl modules. They mos

Re: gnulib's licensing

2011-05-04 Thread Reuben Thomas
On 4 May 2011 01:55, Bruno Haible wrote: > > Technically there's no problem linking a BSD program against an LGPLed > library, or even a GPLed library. But some people in the BSD camp have > a problem with it. It's their problem, not ours. That's something I wasn't clear about. Since I find argui

Re: gnulib's licensing

2011-05-03 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Reuben, > licensing, dependency on autotools, source library > ... > Of those three defects, the third is now being addressed (at least, > for POSIX APIs, by libposix), and the second is not particularly > urgent (autotools has a much bigger reach than it had 6 years ago, and > has less competi

Re: gnulib's licensing

2011-05-03 Thread Paul Eggert
On 05/03/11 16:08, Reuben Thomas wrote: > I assume the licensing for gnulib arises from standard GNU policy; I > just wonder if the portability parts may be a case for an exception. A few parts of gnulib are so trivial that they could perhaps be made exceptions. I think it unlikely, though, that