[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gplv3 files and updates

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: gplv3 files and updates
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 02:10:05 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.5.4

Paul Eggert wrote:
> > 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?

You mean we extend the GPL/LGPL trick, where the actual copyright
of the files is different from the copyright notice in the files?
This looks like a good solution that causes hassles for noone.

So we would have
  a) files under LGPLv2+ whose header says "GPLv3+",
  b) files under GPLv2+ whose header says "GPLv3+".

Meanwhile the fog has cleared up:

  - Brett has confirmed that LGPLv3 is incompatible to GPLv2. Also it
    appears that some packages (not many, but still probably a few percent)
    will stay with GPLv2 for the foreseeable future. I will therefore
    continue to release libintl and libiconv under LGPLv2+, but the tools
    packages around them (gettext and iconv) under GPLv3. The part (a)
    of your proposal fits nicely.

  - The known programs (GPL) that use gnulib will not have problems with
    GPLv3. Therefore part (b) of your proposal is not needed.

In summary, gnulib-tool needs only an option to use LGPLed modules under
LGPLv2 or LGPLv3, at the user's choice. I propose the command line
and     --lgpl      which shall become equivalent to  --lgpl=3.

If this proposal is accepted, I have no objection any more to converting
the headers in the source file to say "GPLv3+".


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]