[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] Use gnulib's c-ctype.h; prohibit use of <ctype.h>



On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 03:09:17PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 02:39:06PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> Jim Meyering <jim meyering net> wrote:
> >> > Following up on this thread:
> >> >
> >> >   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.libvirt/6338/focus=6349
> >> >
> >> > This change removes all uses of ctype macros and ensures
> >> > that no new ones will be added.
> >> >
> >> > The other changes I mentioned will come later.
> >> >
> > [...]
> >>
> >> I should mention that there is a prerequisite patch
> >> to add the c-ctype module and pull in gnulib-related updates:
> >>
> >> >From 105399f605ff7c4c7f5148f18ea08cb63c8c0411 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Jim Meyering <meyering redhat com>
> >> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 13:59:48 +0200
> >> Subject: [PATCH] Prepare to use gnulib's c-type module.
> >
> >   Oops problem !
> >   Assuming c-ctype licence is LGPL i'm all for it but I find
> 
> That's not a problem (and this is documented -- but to find it,
> you have to dig).
> 
> The authoritative source for the license is specified in
> the module-definition file, gnulib/modules/c-ctype.  It is LGPLv2+.

  Looks quite confusing. The .h file says this module is under Licence X
and somewhere a text file says it's under a different Licence Y. My instinctive
reaction (and I guess i'm not the only one) is to assume the licencing
information in the source would be the one binding from a legal POV,
but IANAL, so all i can say is that it looks weird.

> Besides, our invocation of gnulib-tool (in bootstrap) requires that
> any module be compatible with LGPLv2+ via its --lgpl=2 option,
> so this is checked automatically.  You may rest assured that
> any module I propose for addition has the right copyright.
> In addition, when gnulib-tool copies the files into gnulib, it
> rewrites the license to be what we require:

  Okay, i assume there is no problem, changing licences when copying
exceeds my limited understanding, but there is certainly a good and
legally okay reason for that, but I'm fine to stay ignorant as long
as you tell me it's okay :-)

Daniel

-- 
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard      | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine  http://rpmfind.net/


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]