Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We can implement a --gplv3 parameter om gnulib if you > don't want to have GPLv2 mentioned in your sources.
That sounds like a good idea, thanks. The default, though, should be GPLv3, and we can implement a --gplv2 for the old-fashioned projects. Any objections to this idea? Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. > [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2007-06/msg00229.html I didn't miss [1], but I did miss his promise. But the --gplv2 idea should satisfy them, no? > 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. glibc will switch when they get around to it; my understanding is that it's not a big deal. > I'd rather have this done when it is guaranteed that it doesn't cause hassle > to other people, or damage gnulib's reputation. It is a judgment call, but we can never guarantee that there won't be a hassle. It will be a hassle no matter when we do it. It can wait a few days or even weeks but I don't want this stretching out to months. >> 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? RMS certainly, but others as well, ranging from the merely curious "Why are you shipping files with multiple licenses" to the more pointed. I'd rather spend my time worrying about other things.
