On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Paul Moore <pmoore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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. Wonderful. Thanks for the quick action on that. Hopefully it will spread the adoption of the library once the seccomp patches are in the mainline kernel. josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html