Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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?
No, assuming that we make sure gnulib-tool understand that not all GPLv3 code in gnulib can be affected by --gplv2. Idea: Have the current 'GPL' and 'LGPL' refer to 'GPL 2.0' and 'LGPL 2.1'. For new modules that is only available under GPL 3.0 or LGPL 3.0, add as license 'GPL-3' or 'LGPL-3'. gnulib-tool should refuse to apply gplv2-license changing on such modules, and refuse to copy such a module when --gplv2 is used. What do you think? >> 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. FWIW, GnuTLS won't switch from (L)GPLv2 right now. /Simon
