Re: test modules and license

[Paul Eggert]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> The argument for making it LGPL is that an LGPLed package can include
> them without making a complicated license statement like "the library
> source is under LGPL, the testsuite under GPL, and the doc under GFDL".

I'm afraid we've already lost that battle as far as the GFDL goes;
the GNU policy is to use the GFDL for manuals.

I don't think it's all that complicated to tell people that the
library parts of a system are LGPLed, the documentation is GFDLed, the
non-library code is GPLed.  And after all, the GNU policy is to prefer
the GPL for code when possible.