Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > (Please cc me on responses as I'm not a member of the bug-gnulib mailing > list.) > > Simon Josefsson <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> For real-world projects, gnulib often is not a viable alternative. > >> Could you explain why? There are several real-world projects that use >> gnulib, so I'm curious what the perceived reasons against it are. I'm >> genuinely interested in the answer to the question, it is not just >> rethoric because I happen to disagree. > > Most of the code in gnulib is covered by the LGPL. All of my projects are > released under the MIT/X Consortium/Expat license or a two-clause BSD > license. Thanks for explaining -- I guess there are thus two rather different license related reasons (proprietary coding and Expat coding) for not using gnulib that boils down to the same reason really: to avoid the LGPL. If this is the only concern, I can understand it, but I maybe incorrectly thought there were something more to it. FWIW, I agree that it would be bad if autoconf pulled in LGPL code if it was not asked to do so. /Simon _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
