This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- Cc: dj at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, sezeroz at gmail dot com
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 18:31:45 +0300
- Subject: Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <xneg45rvst.fsf@greed.delorie.com> <83eg44ozo2.fsf@gnu.org> <87vaxgf5jq.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> Cc: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, sezeroz@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:43:53 +0200
>
> * Eli Zaretskii:
>
> > If my arithmetics is correct, about 70% of its files is LGPL, the
> > rest GPL. Which doesn't keep many GNU projects under GPL from using
> > Gnulib.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand. Surely anything released under the LGPL by
> the FSF can be upgraded to the current GPLv3? First upgrade to the
> latest LGPL, then switch over to the GPLv3?
>
> (I assume that the FSF releases their works under the “any later
> version” regime.)
The above was in response to DJ's questions up-thread:
> > Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
>
> But then the implementation would need relicensing as well, wouldn't
> it?
>
> Having both under different licenses is just confusing.
Did I misunderstand the question?