Re: gplv3 files and updates

[Paul Eggert]

address@hidden (Karl Berry) writes:

> Most projects want to use the files as GPL, not LGPL, since the projects
> are otherwise GPL, and it's just complication to have them as LGPL.

Yes, that's basically it.  The preferred and more-typical case is an
application distributed under the GPL, and gnulib tries to support the
typical case better.  Nowadays this preferred case should be GPLv3.

> I guess my main concern is that "we" (via gnulib-tool) are converting a
> GPL'd to an LGPL'd file based on external information.

We have to convert the file one way or another, so the only real issue
is what version of the license to put into the CVS version of the
source file.

We know, because of external information, that it's OK to convert a
file from LGPL to GPL.  The "external information" in this case is
the text of the LGPL, which is distributed as part of gnulib.

We also know, because of external information, that it's OK to convert
some gnulib files from GPL to LGPL.  The "external information" in
this case are the modules files, also distributed as part of gnulib.

In both cases some external information is involved (i.e., external to
the source file itself -- not external to gnulib).  The argument for
using LGPL in the CVS version is mostly a legal one (i.e., make things
less confusing for lawyers and for people who are trying to understand
the legal situation).  The argument for using GPL in the CVS version
is mostly a technical one (i.e., make things simpler for most
application developers).

Which consideration should be more important, legal or technical?

> Here's another alternative: for the LGPL'd modules, keep both an LGPL
> and GPL version in the repo.

We'd need at least 4 versions, no? since the v2 versus v3 issue comes
up too.  I'd rather not head that direction.  Let's keep just 1
version in the repo.