Dual-license GPLv2+/LGPLv3+?

[Torbjorn Granlund]

[This is a follow-up on a post to the gmp-bugs mailing list.]

Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org> writes:

  Hi!  The GnuTLS project is changing to support a flexible crypto backend
  interface, and we'd like to recommend people to use Nettle as it has
  some nicer properties regarding thread safety and setuid.  Nettle
  depends on GMP for bignum.  However, it was recently pointed out in
  http://www.bebt.de/blog/debian/archives/2011/02/20/T13_14_34/index.html
  that there are many GPLv2-only projects that is using GnuTLS, which
  would not be able to use GnuTLS linking to GMP.  It has been discussed
  on the gnu-prog-discuss (IIRC) to dual-license some libraries under a
  GPLv2+/LGPLv3+ license to avoid this problem.  Could this be a solution
  here?  Any other thoughts on this?  Since all of GnuTLS, Nettle and GMP
  are GNU projects, we could also ask the FSF for guidance on this.
  
I think LGPL3 brings many important improvements, in particular the
patent protection.

I think much of the unwillingness to move to (L)GPL3 is mere
conservativeness; "we don't move to version 3 because it is not version
2".  And in other cases, M$ money is involved.  (I am not suggesting
that you have such reasons, of course.)

I will argue against dual licensing GMP, but as you say, this is an
issue where FSF need to get involved.  If there is consensus within FSF
and good arguments, then I will concede.

-- 
Torbjörn