Re: gplv3 files and updates

[Karl Berry]

    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2004-09/msg00131.html

I can only say that I sympathize with those issues.

    > On the face of it, it does not seem legal.
    Why not? 

In the specific case: because you can't relicense something from GPL to
LGPL.

In the general case: because the copyright of a file is what's stated in
the file.  Something stated in some other document can't somehow
"override" what's in the file itself.  At least I've never seen any
legal basis for that.

    Who could be hurt by us writing "GPL" on some files which are
    really LGPL and of which we all know that they are LGPL?

It's the conversion from GPL to LGPL by gnulib-tool that worries me.

karl