Re: Shared Libraries and naming conventions
Theodore Y Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> It might be interesting to consider whether or not it makes sense to
> start up up an effort to create a truly free Linux libc which is
> independent of the FSF, and doesn't have this kind of license
> contamination. A requirement of that such an effort would be that
> all parts of the code *must* be under LGPL or X-Consortium style
> copyright. Having GPL'ed code in the library, such as the libio
> code, would be expressly prohibited.
When the issue has come up, I've been pretty firm on the point that the
LSB sample implementation will only include LGPL or X-Consortium style
(or another license no more restrictive than either) licenses for
libraries.
I think the danger we need to avoid is allowing Linux to depend too much
on GPL or other restrictive libraries.
If our goal is to avoid GPL libraries in the LSB sample implementation,
we can always clone any GPL libraries or start with the last version of
a library once released under the LGPL. I don't think it will ever come
to that, though. (Was libio ever published under the LGPL?)
By the way, if you object to the policy of not accepting GPL libraries
in the LSB sample implementation, now is the time to let me know.
- Dan
Reply to: