Eric Blake wrote: > Jim, Bruno, > Any objections to relicensing cloexec as LGPL? set_cloexec_flag is only a > thin > wrapper around fcntl, which currently isn't adding much content beyond a low > level function that is present everywhere except mingw. dup_cloexec is a bit > more complicated, and was borrowed from the GPL module pipe, but again, it is > merely exposing features of the system in a convenient API rather than > inventing new features. If we don't relicense, then rpl_fcntl and O_CLOEXEC > support will have to be GPL, which seems weird, since open is currently LGPL.
Seems sensible. Fine by me.
