Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz at gmail dot com>]

On 9/27/16, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
>
> Ok, but that doesn't say why it's different.  That reason could apply to
> any header in there.  Do we need to convert all headers there to LGPL?
> Is this "otherwise LGPL package" in one of our repos, or elsewhere?  Is
> he aware that filenames.h includes hashtab.h, which is GPL?
>
> (I'm not opposed to the change, just trying to make sure I understand
> it's scope)
>

FYI: What I originally wanted was an authorization _for me_ to use
filenames.h in LGPL projects with LGPL license notice; the version
I use is modified (not refer to any external code other than libc,
i.e. only macros and inlines) and doesn't include hashtab.h either;
therefore I believe that my request is fulfilled and is not subject
to the concerns raised by you guys.

As I understand it, Eli wanted to reflect it in the mainline copy,
which is a matter to be decided by gcc and binutils maintainers.

--
O.S.