> Bruno Haible proposed to change the license of the library from LGPLv3+
> to the "LGPLv3+ or GPLv2" dual license.
Let me add the rationale for this proposal:
1) Support the (direct or indirect) use by GPLv2 programs.
The GPLv2 license is still widely used, see [1].
2) It fixes a disadvantage of GPL2-only applications w.r.t. proprietary or
MIT-licensed software.
3) It is one of the options that RMS recommends, see [2].
Bruno
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Adoption
[2] http://nmav.gnutls.org/2013/03/the-perils-of-lgplv3.html
