There weren't any responses back in March when I sent the question below initially, so consider this a last call for objections to re-license Libidn as dual LGPLv3+|GPLv2-only. I'll likely want to make a release later this week or so, under the new license.
/Simon Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> writes: > To align with GNU policies around library licensing (see [1]) I consider > to re-license GNU Libidn under a dual LGPLv3+ and GPLv2+ license. The > purpose of this e-mail is to get feedback on what projects this could be > problematic for, if any. > > One reason to not do this would be if there is some significant free > software project that uses a license that is incompatible with both the > LGPLv3 and the GPLv2 but are compatible with the LGPLv2+. For example, > any LGPLv2-only project. I've looked briefly at the reverse > dependencies of 'libidn11' in Debian and didn't find anything > immediately, but I haven't gone through them all (and definitely not all > indirect reverse dependencies). > > The FSF maintains a list of GPL-incompatible licenses: > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>. However I guess that > several of these are compatible with the LGPLv3 so the list is not easy > to use. > > /Simon > > [1] http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Licensing-of-GNU-Packages _______________________________________________ Help-libidn mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-libidn
