Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Eric, > >> > What is the semantic of fclose() that you want to test? >> > Basically, you have two possible behaviours of fclose(), one is probably >> > stricter POSIX compliant than the other. >> >> 1. fclose alone - guarantee that fdopen(sockfd) can be fclose'd >> 2. fclose + fflush - guarantee that fclose(stdin) properly positions the >> file on seekable input > > OK, that's how it's documented now, now that the dependency from fflush to > fclose is dropped. > >> if we just relicense fflush to be LGPLv2+, then >> fclose can depend on fflush to begin with, and always solve both >> problems at once, at which point I don't see the need for an fflush-strict. > > Yes, this would be very reasonable. Few users would want only the > halfway fixed fclose(). > > Can we relax the license of 'fflush' and its dependency 'fpurge' from LGPLv3+ > to LGPLv2+? > > lib/fflush.c - needs the permission of you, me, and Jim. > lib/fpurge.c - needs the permission of you and me. > > I agree to relax these two modules to LGPLv2+.
Relaxing fflush.c to LGPLv2+ is fine with me.
