I approve/agree as well.
On Feb 20, 2018 10:31, "Eric Blake" <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/19/2018 05:20 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Often gnulib has relicensed modules for use in LGPLv2+ packages (such as
>> Some modules have also be relicensed for use in "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"
>> packages (such as GNU libunistring). 
>> Today, I would like to ask for relicensing of specific modules for use in
>> GPLv2+ programs, namely GNU clisp.
>> GNU clisp is under GPLv2+, not GPLv3+, because it was designed, from the
>> beginning, as a vehicle for running computer algebra systems. The most
>> prominent computer algebra system written in Lisp is Maxima, and is under
>> GPLv2. If clisp was only distributed under GPLv3+, one could no longer
>> distribute maxima with/in clisp.
>> So, regarding gnulib, I'd like
>> 1) to introduce an option --gpl=v2+ that, like the --lgpl option, verifies
>> license compatibility and updates the copyright header in the source
>> 2) ask for relicensing LGPL -> 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' of the modules
>> strftime, nstrftime, time_rz, tzset
>> 3) ask for relicensing GPL -> GPLv2+ of the modules
> Makes sense to me.
>> Can we go ahead, as usual, with per-module approval by the authors of said
> Upstream ligsigsegv is still GPLv2+ (I'm actually a bit surprised that it
> hasn't bumped to GPLv3+ in the meantime), so that one should be an easy
> sell. None of the others are standing out to me as an obvious sore point,
> so I hereby give approval for the proposed relicensing of my contributions
> to those modules.
> Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
> Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org