Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl

[Charles Wilson]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:11:46 -0800, "Paul Eggert" <address@hidden>
said:
> 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?

I don't think so.  From what I can tell, the version in gnulib has
deviated in significant ways from it's GNU C lib origins, and uses
GPL'ed modules all over the place:
cycle-check: GPL
filenamecat
sys_stat
xalloc
xgetcwd
xreadlink
--
  Charles Wilson
  cygwin at removespam cwilson dot fastmail dot fm