Re: gplv3 files and updates

[Simon Josefsson]

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

> Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 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?

No, assuming that we make sure gnulib-tool understand that not all GPLv3
code in gnulib can be affected by --gplv2.

Idea: Have the current 'GPL' and 'LGPL' refer to 'GPL 2.0' and 'LGPL
2.1'.  For new modules that is only available under GPL 3.0 or LGPL 3.0,
add as license 'GPL-3' or 'LGPL-3'.  gnulib-tool should refuse to apply
gplv2-license changing on such modules, and refuse to copy such a module
when --gplv2 is used.

What do you think?

>> Also, do you have some information about the future license of glibc? Since
>> some files are shared between glibc and gnulib, this is also a point to
>> consider.
>
> glibc will switch when they get around to it; my understanding is that
> it's not a big deal.

FWIW, GnuTLS won't switch from (L)GPLv2 right now.

/Simon