Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The argument for making it LGPL is that an LGPLed package can include > them without making a complicated license statement like "the library > source is under LGPL, the testsuite under GPL, and the doc under GFDL".
I'm afraid we've already lost that battle as far as the GFDL goes; the GNU policy is to use the GFDL for manuals. I don't think it's all that complicated to tell people that the library parts of a system are LGPLed, the documentation is GFDLed, the non-library code is GPLed. And after all, the GNU policy is to prefer the GPL for code when possible.
