[Bug-gnulib] Any objection to changing from LGPL to GPL in gnulib?

[Paul Eggert]

Several gnulib modules (e.g., error.c, getopt.c) are taken from the
GNU C library.  They are normally used in GNU applications like
coreutils and diffutils, and in this normal use they should refer to
the GPL.  However, the gnulib copies currently refer to the LGPL.
This causes confusion; for example, coreutils currently ships with the
LGPL'ed copies of these files, and these copies state "You should have
received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License", but
coreutils doesn't have a copy of that license.

One way to work around the problem is for each maintainer to change
the LGPL reference to a GPL reference when importing from gnulib.
This is what I've done with diffutils, but it's a pain.

Another way to work around this problem would be for coreutils etc. to
ship a copy of the LGPL too, but this would be even more confusing,
since people might incorrectly conclude that coreutils can be
distributed under either the GPL or the LGPL.

A simpler solution, and the solution that used to be used in the old
days, is for the gnulib copies to refer to the GPL and not the LGPL.
I think this solution makes the most sense, as applications that need
LGPL'ed copies can get them directly from glibc.

So would there be any objection if I changed these files to point
to the GPL instead of the LGPL?

The affected files are the following files under gnulib/lib:

error.c
getopt.c
getopt.h
getopt1.c
obstack.c
regex.c
regex.h
strdup.c
strtoll.c
tempname.c

gnulib/regex.c and gnulib/regex.h are GPL'ed already, so they're not
at issue here.