Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] modules: add sd-dlopen-tests module

Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:02:01 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Bruno Haible via Gnulib discussion list <[email protected]> writes:

> 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].

Would the code in gnulib still say 'Copyright © 2026 The systemd
Project' and contain the SPDX identifier and MIT license?  Or is the
plan to change the code when it is committed?

Otherwise everything what you write sounds good to me.

/Simon

>> 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
>
>
>
>
>

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 1.2 KB)