On 05/21/11 02:02, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Wed 04 May 2011 18:36, Paul Eggert writes:
>
>> On 05/04/11 09:34, Andy Wingo wrote:
>>> Would you all be OK with making "clock-time" to be LGPL?
>>
>> Yes, that one's trivial: it actually contains only BSD-like license code
>> so it could be marked BSD-l
On Wed 04 May 2011 18:36, Paul Eggert writes:
> On 05/04/11 09:34, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> Would you all be OK with making "clock-time" to be LGPL?
>
> Yes, that one's trivial: it actually contains only BSD-like license code
> so it could be marked BSD-like if gnulib had a mark for that.
Ping :)
A
On 05/04/11 09:34, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Would you all be OK with making "clock-time" to be LGPL?
Yes, that one's trivial: it actually contains only BSD-like license code
so it could be marked BSD-like if gnulib had a mark for that.
Hello,
Would you all be OK with making "clock-time" to be LGPL? It
doesn't actually include any GPL code, and depends only on "extensions",
which is LGPL.
Thanks,
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/