Re: ANN: libseccomp

[Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>]

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