Hi Reuben, all, Reuben Thomas wrote: > Would it be possible to relax the licenses on these modules so they can be > used with the --lgpl option to gnulib-tool? "GPLed build tool" would seem > appropriate.
Per https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Copyright.html, when a modules has no dependencies and consists only of m4/*.m4 files, the 'License' field in the module description is semantically a no-op. However, for gnulib-tool it makes a difference: If the license is 'GPLed build tool' or 'public domain' or 'unlimited' or 'unmodifiable license text' or 'LGPLv2+', any project that passes --lgpl=2 can use it, whereas if it's 'LGPL' or 'GPL', gnulib-tool gives an 'incompatible license on modules' error. The following modules are in this category: they have no dependencies, consist only of m4/*.m4 files, and have a license that is not 'GPLed build tool' or 'unlimited'. Module Current license absolute-header LGPLv2+ ansi-c++-opt LGPLv2+ assert GPL builtin-expect LGPLv2+ config-h LGPL configmake LGPLv2+ d-ino GPL d-type LGPLv2+ double-slash-root LGPLv2+ extensions LGPLv2+ fpieee LGPLv2+ host-os GPL largefile LGPLv2+ link-follow GPL longlong GPL no-c++ LGPL openmp LGPL perl GPL printf-safe LGPLv2+ rmdir-errno GPL socketlib LGPLv2+ std-gnu11 GPL unlink-busy GPL uptime GPL va-args LGPL vararrays LGPL winsz-termios GPL year2038 LGPLv2+ 'std-gnu11' (and 'c99' with it) could IMO really be 'LGPLv2+' or 'unlimited' - like inline, extern-inline, warnings, extensions. 'd-ino', 'host-os', 'longlong' could IMO be switched to 'LGPL', since they are surely useful in libraries. Opinions? Bruno
