Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I noticed this for the dummy.c module, which after been imported with >> --lgpl said: >> >> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify >> it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published >> by >> the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or >> (at your option) any later version. >> >> The dummy.c in gnulib contains the GPLv3 header, and the modules file >> says LGPLv2+. >> >> The patch below fixes this, but I'm not sure if there are other >> unintended consequences. Comments? Ok to install? > > The patch is not ok: it would also change LGPLv3+ files to LGPLv2+ without > checking that it is allowed to do this. > > This is old code, meant to change a GPLv2+ to LGPLv2+.
Ok. > In the current situation (where we care about the distinction between > LGPLv2+ and LGPLv3+ but where GPL means GPLv3+ always), That hasn't been clear to me: GnuTLS still uses GPLv2 for compatibility with other GPLv2 applications/libraries, and we can't (and don't) use GPLv3 gnulib modules. Several files in gnulib have GPLv3 headers, and several have GPLv2 headers. I see nothing in the gnulib manual that discusses this. GnuTLS could theoretically use GPLv3 modules in the command line tools, and use GPLv2 modules for the GPL'd library. I don't think there is a problem in using GPLv3 for the command line tools. But right now there hasn't been any need for GPLv3 modules in the command-line tools only. It makes things more complex to distribute both GPLv2 and GPLv3 copies. So if possible the simplest is to only use GPLv2 gnulib modules in GnuTLS. > what is needed is that the option --lgpl takes an argument: --lgpl=2 > means to convert to LGPLv2+, whereas --lgpl or --lgpl=3 means to > convert to LGPLv3+. And --gpl=2 and --gpl=3 flags too? > Pieces of gnulib-tool affected: command line parsing, usage message, > reading and writing of the configuration, sed_transform_lib_file, > verification of license (lines 2210..2220). I think we need to decide exactly how this should work, then we could try and solve it. Some questions: What license headers should gnulib *.[hc] files have? GPLv3? Right now there is a mix of GPLv2, GPLv3, Lesser GPL v2 (that license doesn't even exist!? v2 was called Library GPL), LGPLv2.1, and LGPLv3. Combined with the License:-statements in the modules/ files, this gives a rather confusing license impression. /Simon
