Simon Josefsson wrote: > What is gnulib's policy on non-FSF and/or non-(L)GPL licensed modules? > > I thought that we required FSF copyright assignment for contributions,
Yes, we require an FSF copyright assignment; Luca's paperwork is ongoing. > and that there were a preference for (L)GPL licenses. Yes, we are not fans of license proliferation. That's why I voted against extending gnulib-tool that way [1]. But since MIT or BSD licensed code can be distributed as LGPL [2][3], we can include such code. Just like glibc does [4]. > Did we ever write that down somewher, or is there no consensus on that? There is consensus, but we did not write it down so far. Bruno [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2026-07/msg00094.html [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html [3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License [4] glibc/resolv/base64.c, glibc/sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/e_gamma_r.c
