[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes: > Are you saying that gnulib be released under GPLv2+ indefinitely? If > so, the other gnulib maintainers should have a say (I don't include > myself, since I hardly contribute anything much these days), and, most > importantly, rms should be asked.
I think it would be useful to keep some modules GPLv2, at least for some time. I have no problems with changing to (L)GPLv3-only for possibly the majority of modules, unless there are GNU projects under (L)GPLv2 using a particular module, or if there is some other good reason to stay with v2. > The expectation is that all GNU projects will upgrade to GPLv3. rms > already said that in some cases it may be a tactical decision not to > upgrade, or to delay upgrading. But that's a decision that is, > ultimately, up to him. (I doubt "because Snort won't like it" is going > to be an overwhelming reason to him.) RMS suggested that GnuTLS shouldn't be upgraded now. It would create unnecessary work if I have to fork the current gnulib modules and maintain them separately, which would be needed if gnulib switched to (L)GPLv3. /Simon
