[gnu.org #693634] GMP as dual-license GPLv2+/LGPLv3+?
nisse at lysator.liu.se
Wed May 18 16:18:52 CEST 2011
Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org> writes:
> Torbjörn, is this the confirmation you were looking for?
I'll try to describe my position (I can't speak for Torbjörn, of course).
I have no objectives to the proposed dual licensing in principle. But
since it will surely cause some additional hassle (e.g, for copying code
from a plain LGPLv3 library into a dual licensed GPLv2 & LGPLv3 library
requires explicit permission from the author/copyright holder), I'd
prefer not to do it unless it really solves a real problem, and I'm
still missing a compelling argument for that.
I think you have said "GnuTLS is used by many GPLv2-only application
[...]". I think it would be helpful if you could be a bit more specific,
and give some examples of these "many" applications.
Also, it's not clear to me if the dual licensing arrangement described
in the maintainers file is intended as a bugfix to LGPLv3 (that text
could have provided use under "GPLv2 or later" as an additional
permission) to be applied to more or less any code licensed under
LGPLv3, or an exception to be used only when there's a compelling
reason. If the dual licensing is going to be the rule or the exception
matters a lot if you consider how much hassle it's going to be to copy
code between different libraries in coming years.
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.
More information about the gmp-devel