Re: Shared Libraries and naming conventions
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> 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
Erik Troan <email@example.com> writes:
> So you're not going to include db 2.x? That will make compiling
> glibc interesting at best.
We may need to make a distinction between libraries that are *in* the
LSB sample implemenation for compiling glibc (or whatever) vs. ones in
the sample implementation for LSB applications. Or maybe we can just
leave it all up to the LSB application author.
The db 2.x license is a little odd.
>> 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.
> It seems pretty unrealistic at best, unfortunately.
I'm not quite so pessimistic.