On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:11:46 -0800, "Paul Eggert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
