[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnulib] licenses again
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnulib] licenses again |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:51:40 -0400 |
Would this force all programs that #include gnulib header files to
follow GPL?
1) For gnulib stuff that really is a "system component", this seems like
a valid argument to me, since for example free programs include Sun's
stdio.h on Solaris. Why should they not be able to include an LGPL'd
snprintf.h, then? (Or whatever.) However, I doubt rms/novalis would
like this idea.
2) Regardless of that, the files which are originally LGPL'd can of
course be retrieved in their original form, as both you and Bruno
point out.
Is everything you need either a system component or originally LGPL'd?
If so, seems like you are ok. If not, seems problematic.
karl
P.S. The one time I asked rms to dual license something (brace expansion
code from bash) under GPL and LGPL, he said no. Does rms know your
project is LGPL'd and agree with your reasoning? If so, maybe he'd be
willing to allow all gnulib stuff to be dual-licensed. Of course, he
barely knows what gnulib is (as far as I know), so the whole situation
is going to have be explained from scratch.
- [Bug-gnulib] licenses again, Simon Josefsson, 2004/09/21
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] licenses again, Bruno Haible, 2004/09/21
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] licenses again,
Karl Berry <=
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] licenses again, Bruno Haible, 2004/09/22
- [Bug-gnulib] Re: licenses again, Simon Josefsson, 2004/09/22
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: licenses again, Karl Berry, 2004/09/22
- [Bug-gnulib] Re: licenses again, Simon Josefsson, 2004/09/23
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: licenses again, Bruno Haible, 2004/09/23
- [Bug-gnulib] Re: licenses again, Simon Josefsson, 2004/09/24