Re: Request to relicense hash gnulib module to LGPLv2+

[Paul Eggert]

On 09/12/13 10:05, Eric Blake wrote:
> The function with the license being changed is already available on a
> GNU system under the looser license (for example, any gnulib function
> that is also present in glibc).

A nit: I'd change "the looser" to "a looser".  It should be OK, for
example, for us
to change a license from GPLv3+ to LGPLv3+ if it's available under LGPLv2+
in a GNU system.

> For modules not mirroring glibc: Relaxing the license will not expose
> libraries to code that will call exit() on failure (thus, xalloc would
> never be relicensed as LGPL).

This part needs some motivation, if only to explain matters to rms.
It's not obvious from the text what exit-on-failure has to do with
LGPL vs GPL, for example.  Maybe you could work something like
the following into the text:

Some Gnulib modules are intended for use only in standalone applications,
and their licenses are therefore intended to be GPL rather than LGPL.
These modules call 'exit' on failure, an action that would be inappropriate
for a library.