Re: gplv3 files and updates

[Bruno Haible]

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> 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?

You are effectively proposing that some parts of gnulib should be under
"GPLv2 or newer" and some other parts under "GPLv3 or newer".

What would be the point of doing this?

  - For the developers of "GPLv2 only" packages like Snort, the message
    would be "you can use half of gnulib, but only half". This means we
    pressure these developers. But IMO we have no right to pressure them
    regarding the copyright of their code - they are the authors, they
    have the freedom to choose the copying conditions of their code.
    And when they create GPLed applications, they are in the same boat
    as us - creating more free software. The free software community is
    already enough suffering from the split into a BSD-license camp and
    a GPL-license camp, it does not need a further fragmentation into a
    GPLv2-license camp and a GPLv3-license camp.

  - For us, it would mean additional mails and decisions like "can we
    put the xreadlink module under GPLv2+, please". I don't like spending
    time on such minor issues.

Therefore I would prefer to have all the GPLed parts of gnulib under the
same license. And Yoann gave an example from which it follows that this
license better be GPLv2+ rather than GPLv3+.

Bruno