As proposed a week ago:
> Now I propose to change the documented meaning of "GPL" and "LGPL" in
> the modules files (to GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+, respectively)
Done:
2007-10-07 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* doc/gnulib-intro.texi (Copyright): Update the meaning of the license
abbreviations in the modules files.
*** doc/gnulib-intro.texi.orig 2007-10-07 19:46:41.000000000 +0200
--- doc/gnulib-intro.texi 2007-10-07 19:41:15.000000000 +0200
***************
*** 212,220 ****
Most modules are under the GPL. Some, mostly modules which can
reasonably be used in libraries, are under LGPL. The source files
always say "GPL", but the real license specification is in the module
! description file. If the module description file says "GPL", it currently
! means "GPLv2+" (GPLv2 or newer, at the licensee's choice); if it says "LGPL",
! it currently means "LGPLv2+" (LGPLv2 or newer, at the licensee's choice).
More precisely, the license specification in the module description
file applies to the files in @file{lib/} and @file{build-aux/}. Different
--- 212,220 ----
Most modules are under the GPL. Some, mostly modules which can
reasonably be used in libraries, are under LGPL. The source files
always say "GPL", but the real license specification is in the module
! description file. If the module description file says "GPL", it means
! "GPLv3+" (GPLv3 or newer, at the licensee's choice); if it says "LGPL",
! it means "LGPLv3+" (LGPLv3 or newer, at the licensee's choice).
More precisely, the license specification in the module description
file applies to the files in @file{lib/} and @file{build-aux/}. Different
