Hi Paul, > > - First, get agreement that all projects that use gnulib are OK with > > GPLv3. > > I don't hear any objection, so let's assume there's agreement on that topic.
You must have missed Karl's mail [1]: He promised to ask the maintainers of three packages that use gnulib, whether they are OK with GPLv3. I haven't heard the answer so far. Also, Simon and I have asked questions about the LGPLv3 to the FSF licensing people. The answer to these questions will influence my position regarding libintl and libiconv; and as you know, some files in gnulib are shared with libintl and libiconv. Also, do you have some information about the future license of glibc? Since some files are shared between glibc and gnulib, this is also a point to consider. > > - Then, over a few weeks, let these projects upgrade their READMEs and > > license notices in their source code. > > OK, but I'd rather have this done sooner than later. I'd rather have this done when it is guaranteed that it doesn't cause hassle to other people, or damage gnulib's reputation. If it means to wait, then I prefer to wait. > The longer we wait the more hassles we'll have in terms of people asking > us what's going on. Which people? You mean RMS? Other people hardly have a reason to complain if we wait: The current license of gnulib is compatible to both GPLv2 and GPLv3. > How about if we set a changeover date for gnulib? I propose July 10. Given that there are some open issues before I can make up my opinion regarding libintl and libiconv, I feel put under time pressure by such a date. Bruno [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2007-06/msg00229.html
