Messages in this thread | | | From | Paul Moore <> | Subject | Re: ANN: libseccomp | Date | Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:29:17 -0400 |
| |
On Monday, April 09, 2012 05:28:41 PM Paul Moore wrote: > On Monday, April 09, 2012 04:14:15 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > > > On 04/09/2012 12:25 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > >> Do you think the GPLv2 license will limit adoption of it's usage across > > >> a wider variety of software projects? I'm not anti-GPL by any means > > >> but I am slightly surprised libseccomp is using it. > > >> > > >> josh > > > > > > Yes, on the surface of it this would seem more like LGPL material. > > > > > > Other than that, very much needed! > > > > Agreed on both points. I only brought this up now as it's very early > > in the project's lifetime. If a relicense were to happen it would be > > better to do it before a larger number of developers started > > contributing to the project. > > You both bring up a good point, the LGPL seems like a better choice. I > chose GPLv2 when I started simply out of habit; it is a license I am both > familiar and comfortable with so it has a tendency to get used when I start > a new chunk of code. > > As you pointed out, the project is still very new with only a handful of > authors beyond myself. I'll get in touch with them privately to make sure > they are comfortable with the relicense and assuming there are no problems > I'll report back when everything has been changed.
Just an update, the project has just been relicensed under the LGPLv2.1 license.
-- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat
| |