Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Simon, > >> > In the current situation (where we care about the distinction between >> > LGPLv2+ and LGPLv3+ but where GPL means GPLv3+ always), >> >> That hasn't been clear to me: GnuTLS still uses GPLv2 for compatibility >> with other GPLv2 applications/libraries, and we can't (and don't) use >> GPLv3 gnulib modules. Several files in gnulib have GPLv3 headers, and >> several have GPLv2 headers. I see nothing in the gnulib manual that >> discusses this. > > The doc (doc/gnulib-intro.texi section "Copyright") says that the header > in the file is irrelevant since the copyright is given by the modules file.
Ok. > The gnulib modules that I see used in GnuTLS (specifically directory lgl/) > are all covered by LGPLv2+: The GPLv2 part of GnuTLS uses some GPL'ed modules, in gl/: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/gnulib/modules$ grep GPL arpa_inet error fdl gendocs getaddrinfo getline getpass gpl-2.0 inet_ntop inet_pton lgpl-2.1 maintainer-makefile progname readline version-etc-fsf arpa_inet:LGPLv2+ error:LGPL gendocs:GPLed build tool getaddrinfo:LGPLv2+ getline:LGPLv2+ getpass:LGPLv2+ inet_ntop:LGPLv2+ inet_pton:LGPL maintainer-makefile:GPLed build tool progname:GPL readline:GPL version-etc-fsf:GPL [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/gnulib/modules$ >> GnuTLS could theoretically use GPLv3 modules in the command line tools, >> and use GPLv2 modules for the GPL'd library. I don't think there is a >> problem in using GPLv3 for the command line tools. But right now there >> hasn't been any need for GPLv3 modules in the command-line tools only. >> It makes things more complex to distribute both GPLv2 and GPLv3 copies. >> So if possible the simplest is to only use GPLv2 gnulib modules in >> GnuTLS. > > The complexity of distributing a library under one license and the > corresponding tools under another license is very manageable. I do this > for libiconv and gettext. You distribute both COPYINGv2 and COPYINGv3, and > add a statement to the README, saying that the library is under GPLv2 and > the tools are under GPLv3. Ok. I think that would solve all of the problems. >> > what is needed is that the option --lgpl takes an argument: --lgpl=2 >> > means to convert to LGPLv2+, whereas --lgpl or --lgpl=3 means to >> > convert to LGPLv3+. >> >> And --gpl=2 and --gpl=3 flags too? > > You are saying that you don't have "any need for GPLv3 modules in the > command-line tools" so far. So why bother introducing an option that > affects only an empty set of modules? If I need GPLv2 modules in the GPL'ed part of the library, the option seems to be necessary. However, by using a COPYINGv2+COPYINGv3, I believe I don't need any gnulib modules under GPLv2. >> > Pieces of gnulib-tool affected: command line parsing, usage message, >> > reading and writing of the configuration, sed_transform_lib_file, >> > verification of license (lines 2210..2220). >> >> I think we need to decide exactly how this should work, then we could >> try and solve it. Some questions: >> >> What license headers should gnulib *.[hc] files have? GPLv3? > > Yes, GPLv3 (at least until Brett and Paul have finished discussing the issue > that Brett has with it). Is there any point in patching files to say GPLv3 consistency until the discussion has finished? /Simon
