Re: Request to relicense hash gnulib module to LGPLv2+

[Simon Josefsson]

I'm fine relicensing hash, I don't recall doing anything significant in it.

/Simon

Eric Blake <address@hidden> skrev:
>On 08/28/2013 11:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> libguestfs (an LGPLv2+ library) uses the 'hash' module, which turns
>> out to be "GPL".
>> 
>> Actually this happened because we started to use it in a separate
>> GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in
>the
>> core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking
>> the license of 'hash'.
>> 
>> We'd therefore like to request that 'hash' is relicensed as LGPLv2+.
>> If this is not possible, we will have to rewrite the code, probably
>> implementing our own hash table, which would be a shame because hash
>> works well for our needs.
>> 
>> Notes:
>> 
>> - the code doesn't appear to call exit (it does call abort), and so
>>   seems to be suitable for a library
>> 
>> - hash-pjw which we also use is already licensed as LGPLv2+
>> 
>> - it looks like the original author was Jim Meyering (CC'd)
>
>Adding all other authors based on git history, to try and spur this
>along (Paul, Simon, Bruno, and myself).  I give consent for the patches
>I've made.
>
>> 
>> - the dependencies are all LGPLv2+
>
>The fact that Bruno has been notably silent on this list for several
>months may be a problem; we have several outstanding requests for a
>looser license on these and other modules where Bruno has made
>non-trivial contributions.  It may be time to ask rms if the FSF can do
>the relicensing, rather than our current policy of tracking down all
>contributors and asking them to use their grant-back clause of their
>FSF
>copyright assignment as our backdoor of not having to involve the FSF.