Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl

[Paul Eggert]

Charles Wilson <address@hidden> writes:

> Precedent: the fts and fts-lgpl modules each provide functionality
> similar to the other, under different licenses -- where the module
> under the lesser license provides lesser, but still useful,
> functionality. That is the case here, as well: the canonicalize module
> protects against cycles, and uses the x* memory functions; the
> canonicalize-lgpl module does not have this protection.

It's a reasonable idea, but I'd prefer something more like fts, where
the code itself is the same in both modules; all that differs is that
the GPL'ed version uses some other modules that are GPL'ed, wheras the
LGPL'ed version does not.  With the proposed patch for canonicalize-lgpl,
there are two copies of the source code, even though the idea is essentially
the same.  Can't we slim it down to one copy?