I'm fine relicensing hash, I don't recall doing anything significant in it. /Simon Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> skrev:
libguestfs (an LGPLv2+ library) uses the 'hash' module, which turns out to be "GPL".
Actually this happened because we started to use it in a separate GPL'd utility program, but later on included this functionality in
On 08/28/2013 11:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: the
core library, copying the same code from the utility but not checking the license of 'hash'.
We'd therefore like to request that 'hash' is relicensed as LGPLv2+. If this is not possible, we will have to rewrite the code, probably implementing our own hash table, which would be a shame because hash works well for our needs.
Notes:
- the code doesn't appear to call exit (it does call abort), and so seems to be suitable for a library
- hash-pjw which we also use is already licensed as LGPLv2+
- it looks like the original author was Jim Meyering (CC'd)
Adding all other authors based on git history, to try and spur this along (Paul, Simon, Bruno, and myself). I give consent for the patches I've made.
- the dependencies are all LGPLv2+
The fact that Bruno has been notably silent on this list for several months may be a problem; we have several outstanding requests for a looser license on these and other modules where Bruno has made non-trivial contributions. It may be time to ask rms if the FSF can do the relicensing, rather than our current policy of tracking down all contributors and asking them to use their grant-back clause of their FSF copyright assignment as our backdoor of not having to involve the FSF.