[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl |
Date: |
Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:11:46 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
Charles Wilson <address@hidden> writes:
> Precedent: the fts and fts-lgpl modules each provide functionality
> similar to the other, under different licenses -- where the module
> under the lesser license provides lesser, but still useful,
> functionality. That is the case here, as well: the canonicalize module
> protects against cycles, and uses the x* memory functions; the
> canonicalize-lgpl module does not have this protection.
It's a reasonable idea, but I'd prefer something more like fts, where
the code itself is the same in both modules; all that differs is that
the GPL'ed version uses some other modules that are GPL'ed, wheras the
LGPL'ed version does not. With the proposed patch for canonicalize-lgpl,
there are two copies of the source code, even though the idea is essentially
the same. Can't we slim it down to one copy?
- Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl, Charles Wilson, 2006/11/02
- Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl, Charles Wilson, 2006/11/02
- Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/03
- Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/03
- Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl, Charles Wilson, 2006/11/03
- Re: [bug-gnulib] Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl, Bruno Haible, 2006/11/06
- Re: [bug-gnulib] Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/06
- Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl, Jim Meyering, 2006/11/07
- Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl, Simon Josefsson, 2006/11/07