Re: relax license of cloexec, fcntl

[Jim Meyering]

Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 10:04 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Yes, this point has been raised in the past.  I certainly agree that a
>> process with no children doesn't need the overhead of guaranteeing an
>> open() wrapper that supports O_CLOEXEC, so definitely splitting things
>> into two modules is worthwhile.  In fact, I'm wondring if the best
>> approach might even be to just have the existing cloexec module be the
>> key for whether O_CLOEXEC is guaranteed to be supported in open.
>>
>> At any rate, all contributors have replied, so I'm pushing this:
>
> Also worth converting from LGPLv3+ to LGPLv2+:
>
> dup3
> pipe2
> accept4
>
> I'm guessing they were created LGPL at the time because fcntl() and
> cloexec modules were not at v2+.  Any objections to relaxing those three
> modules?

Fine by me.