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
syntax
--lgpl=2
--lgpl=3
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+".
Bruno
