Re: relicensing to GPLv3-family of licenses (was Re: Distribution Naming System)

[Sébastien Wilmet <swilmet gnome org>]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:26:52AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> RMS wrote at 12:58 (EDT) on Monday:
> > > > For many libraries, using LGPLv2.1 may be best, to allow use in
> > > > GPLv2-covered programs.
>
> I have to disagree with RMS on this point.  As I proposed on
> desktop-devel a long time ago:
> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2010-July/msg00097.html
>
> IMO, the best license for currently LGPLv2.1-or-later libraries is to
> upgrade to (GPLv2-only|LGPLv3-or-later).

Some libraries such as GLib and GTK+ are licensed under the 
LGPLv2-or-later, not LGPLv2.1. Is it possible to migrate to the dual 
license (GPLv2-only|LGPLv3-or-later) ?

And if I understand correctly, the applications under the GPLv2-or-later 
can easily migrate to the GPLv3-or-later regardless of the library 
licences (LGPLv2, LGPLv2.1 or LGPLv3).

To move things forward, the best is probably to create a GNOME goal:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals

If some maintainers refuse to migrate to the GPLv3 or LGPLv3 for 
whatever reason, they can simply state it alongside the relevant 
modules.

Best regards,
Sébastien