[Bug-gnulib] Re: licenses again

[Simon Josefsson]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> Karl Berry wrote:
>> 2) Regardless of that, the files which are originally LGPL'd can of
>>    course be retrieved in their original form
>
> But since it isn't clear to an outsider which module (more precisely,
> the source code under lib/) is under LGPL and which isn't, I have now added
> a 'License' tag to the module description.

Seems like a good move.

I came up with one approach that may have been implied in my thinking
before: have "standard" interfaces in gnulib, like strdup and
snprintf, be available under LGPL, and have all "improved"
GNU-conforming interfaces, like asprintf, be available under GPL.

In GNU SASL, which is LGPL, I needed strdup, and it was a strange
feeling having to rewrite strdup because the gnulib copy is GPL.  It
seem like a disservice to only have strdup under GPL.

OTOH, this approach would mean that GNU packages under LGPL cannot
make use of the GNU improved interfaces.  For example, it would mean I
couldn't use, e.g., getline or asprintf.  Both are useful when writing
code that should confirm to the GNU standards, i.e., not have
arbitrary limitations.  So it would create more work for some GNU
projects.  This argue for LGPL on more of gnulib, though.

One aspect of this can be broken down into this question: would you
accept a rewritten, under LGPL, module of something that is part of
today's gnulib, but under GPL?

Just some thoughts.  Perhaps we can ask RMS if he has any thoughts on
this.

Thanks,
Simon