On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Niels Möller <[email protected]> wrote: > At some point, we have to abandon older GMP releases. As for supporting > GPLv2-only applications, I know that GMP developers have considered > doing GPLv2+ and LGPLv3+ dual licensing. People who have a *real* > interest in that (rather than hypotheticals like "some other people > might not like LGPLv3") should contact GMP developers and offer help and > encouragement.
Well, I feel a bit awkward now because my understanding from our previous discussion that this was a planned move for gmp. I believe I gave you concrete examples of projects that have issues. I add here that my GPLv2 project [0] has issues since because of gmp it can only be distributed under GPLv3. Feel free to forward that to any mailing list (I don't see the point of repeating oneself though; there have already been discussions [1], what is missing is the actual action.) I really don't understand what you mean about help and encouragement. If it is about practicalities, wouldn't placing a copy of GPLv2 in the directory and saing in a readme that you provide an exception to distribute the library under GPLv2, be sufficient? Why would you need to do anything more than that? If by encouragement you mean something else could you please clarify that? regards, Nikos [0]. http://www.infradead.org/ocserv/ [1]. http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-devel/2011-May/001946.html _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
