new module 'clean-temp-simple'

This series of patches splits the module 'clean-temp' into two modules: - clean-temp-simple, under LGPLv2+, - clean-temp, still under GPL. I am the sole author of lib/clean-temp-simple.c, hence I can do this. (The contributions to lib/clean-temp.c by Eric Blake and John Darrington are still

Re: error, getprogname: Relicense under LGPLv2+

Thank you all for the very quick approval! Done: 2021-03-22 Bruno Haible getprogname: Relicense under LGPLv2+. Pino Toscano's approval is in . Paul Eggert's approval is in

Re: Fwd: error, getprogname: Relicense under LGPLv2+

Bruno Haible wrote: For lib/getprogname.c we would need the approval of Pino Toscano Paul Eggert Jim Meyering Gisle Vanem Daniel Richard G John David Anglin Benji Wiebe No problem. Go ahead.

Re: error, getprogname: Relicense under LGPLv2+

Yes I give permission to relicense my code as requested. On 3/22/21 8:08 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: I would like to use the module 'clean-temp' and, with it, the modules 'error' and 'getprogname' in a library under GPLv2+ (namely, GNU libffcall) and in a gnulib module for JIT support. To this

Re: fatal-signal: Relicense under LGPLv2+

> > Eric, would you please give me the permission to use this change to > > lib/fatal-signal.c under LGPLv2+? > > Yes, that's fine with me. Thank you! Done: 2021-03-22 Bruno Haible fatal-signal: Relicense under LGPLv2+. Eric Blake's approval is in

Re: error, getprogname: Relicense under LGPLv2+

Hi Bruno, hello list, On Mon, 2021 Mar 22 09:08-04:00, Bruno Haible wrote: > I would like to use the module 'clean-temp' and, with it, the modules 'error' > and 'getprogname' in a library under GPLv2+ (namely, GNU libffcall) and in a > gnulib module for JIT support. > > To this effect, I would

Re: fatal-signal: Relicense under LGPLv2+

On 3/21/21 9:37 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: > I need to use the module 'clean-temp' and, with it, the module 'fatal-signal' > in a library under GPLv2+ (namely, GNU libffcall). To this effect, I would > like to put this module (fatal-signal) under LGPLv2+. > > Aside from my contributions and a few

Re: error, getprogname: Relicense under LGPLv2+

On Monday, 22 March 2021 16:28:57 CET John David Anglin wrote: > On 2021-03-22 10:37 a.m., Jim Meyering wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 6:09 AM Bruno Haible wrote: > >> I would like to use the module 'clean-temp' and, with it, the modules > >> 'error' > >> and 'getprogname' in a library under

Re: error, getprogname: Relicense under LGPLv2+

On 3/22/21 6:08 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: To give your approval, please reply with the mailing list in CC. Sounds good to me.

Re: error, getprogname: Relicense under LGPLv2+

On 2021-03-22 10:37 a.m., Jim Meyering wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 6:09 AM Bruno Haible wrote: >> I would like to use the module 'clean-temp' and, with it, the modules 'error' >> and 'getprogname' in a library under GPLv2+ (namely, GNU libffcall) and in a >> gnulib module for JIT support. >>

Re: error, getprogname: Relicense under LGPLv2+

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 6:09 AM Bruno Haible wrote: > I would like to use the module 'clean-temp' and, with it, the modules 'error' > and 'getprogname' in a library under GPLv2+ (namely, GNU libffcall) and in a > gnulib module for JIT support. > > To this effect, I would like to ask for your

error, getprogname: Relicense under LGPLv2+

I would like to use the module 'clean-temp' and, with it, the modules 'error' and 'getprogname' in a library under GPLv2+ (namely, GNU libffcall) and in a gnulib module for JIT support. To this effect, I would like to ask for your permission to relicense these modules (error and getprogname) from

Re: [PATCH] mbrtowc: remove a redundant condition

Hi Benno, > By staring at the code and trying to understand whether I am missing > something, why that c == 0xf4 is there. I see. For consistency with the other occurrences of this idiom lib/unistr/u8-check.c:66: && (c < 0xf4 || (c == 0xf4 && s[1] < 0x90)))

Re: [PATCH] mbrtowc: remove a redundant condition

Op 21-03-2021 om 19:22 schreef Bruno Haible: > Hi Benno, > >> * lib/mbrtowc-impl-utf8.h: There is no need to check for c == 0xf4 >> when !(c < 0xf4), as ten lines earlier c <= 0xf4 was established. > > Your patch is correct. But we generally don't need to do micro- > optimizations that a

Re: linkedhash-list: Relicense under LGPLv2+

Paul Eggert wrote: > > Paul, can I have your approval to relicense this change under LGPLv2+ ? > > So that I can then change this module's license. > > Yes, that's fine. Thank you. Done: 2021-03-22 Bruno Haible linkedhash-list: Relicense under LGPLv2+. Paul Eggert's