[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes: > Most projects want to use the files as GPL, not LGPL, since the projects > are otherwise GPL, and it's just complication to have them as LGPL.
Yes, that's basically it. The preferred and more-typical case is an application distributed under the GPL, and gnulib tries to support the typical case better. Nowadays this preferred case should be GPLv3. > I guess my main concern is that "we" (via gnulib-tool) are converting a > GPL'd to an LGPL'd file based on external information. We have to convert the file one way or another, so the only real issue is what version of the license to put into the CVS version of the source file. We know, because of external information, that it's OK to convert a file from LGPL to GPL. The "external information" in this case is the text of the LGPL, which is distributed as part of gnulib. We also know, because of external information, that it's OK to convert some gnulib files from GPL to LGPL. The "external information" in this case are the modules files, also distributed as part of gnulib. In both cases some external information is involved (i.e., external to the source file itself -- not external to gnulib). The argument for using LGPL in the CVS version is mostly a legal one (i.e., make things less confusing for lawyers and for people who are trying to understand the legal situation). The argument for using GPL in the CVS version is mostly a technical one (i.e., make things simpler for most application developers). Which consideration should be more important, legal or technical? > Here's another alternative: for the LGPL'd modules, keep both an LGPL > and GPL version in the repo. We'd need at least 4 versions, no? since the v2 versus v3 issue comes up too. I'd rather not head that direction. Let's keep just 1 version in the repo.
