last-call on libidn re-licensing (was: Re: re-license to dual LGPLv3/GPLv2?)

[Simon Josefsson]

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 <address@hidden> 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