On 9/27/16, DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Eli Zaretskii <e...@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.