relicense some modules for use under GPLv2+

[Bruno Haible]

Hi,

Often gnulib has relicensed modules for use in LGPLv2+ packages (such as
libvirt).

Some modules have also be relicensed for use in "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"
packages (such as GNU libunistring). [1]

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
files,

2) ask for relicensing LGPL -> 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' of the modules
no-c++
mkfifo
mknod
strftime, nstrftime, time_rz, tzset

3) ask for relicensing GPL -> GPLv2+ of the modules
c-strtod
getloadavg
link-follow
libsigsegv
vma-iter

Thoughts?

Can we go ahead, as usual, with per-module approval by the authors of said
modules?

Bruno

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-11/msg00036.html

[Eric Blake]

Post by Bruno Haible
Hi,
Often gnulib has relicensed modules for use in LGPLv2+ packages (such as
libvirt).
Some modules have also be relicensed for use in "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"
packages (such as GNU libunistring). [1]
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
files,
2) ask for relicensing LGPL -> 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' of the modules
no-c++
mkfifo
mknod
strftime, nstrftime, time_rz, tzset
3) ask for relicensing GPL -> GPLv2+ of the modules
c-strtod
getloadavg
link-follow
libsigsegv
vma-iter
Thoughts?

Makes sense to me.

Post by Bruno Haible
Can we go ahead, as usual, with per-module approval by the authors of said
modules?

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.

[Jim Meyering]

I approve/agree as well.

Post by Eric Blake

Post by Bruno Haible
Hi,
Often gnulib has relicensed modules for use in LGPLv2+ packages (such as
libvirt).
Some modules have also be relicensed for use in "dual LGPLv3+ or GPLv2"
packages (such as GNU libunistring). [1]
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
files,
2) ask for relicensing LGPL -> 'LGPLv3+ or GPLv2' of the modules
no-c++
mkfifo
mknod
strftime, nstrftime, time_rz, tzset
3) ask for relicensing GPL -> GPLv2+ of the modules
c-strtod
getloadavg
link-follow
libsigsegv
vma-iter
Thoughts?

Makes sense to me.

Post by Bruno Haible
Can we go ahead, as usual, with per-module approval by the authors of said
modules?

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. [phone]
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org

[Paul Eggert]

Post by Bruno Haible
Today, I would like to ask for relicensing of specific modules for use in
GPLv2+ programs, namely GNU clisp.

This all sounds good to me as well.