Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?

[Joe Orton]

On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:30:48PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> RMS asked if there are is reason GnuTLS should remain LGPLv2.1+ instead
> of using LGPLv3+.
> 
> The reasons I'm familiar with includes lynx under GPLv2-only.  Gnucash
> is also said to contain GPLv2-only code.
> 
> Are there other reasons not to use LGPLv3+?

Here's a list of packages from Fedora Raw Hide which link against GnuTLS 
and have license tags indicating GPLv2-only licensing:

aria2-0.12.0-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
climm-0.6.3-1.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
cups-1.3.8-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
ekg2-0.2-0.4.rc1.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
gobby-0.4.6-1.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
hardinfo-0.4.2.3-6.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
jd-2.0.1-0.2.beta080901.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
snort-2.8.1-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
sobby-0.4.4-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
xfce4-mailwatch-plugin-1.0.1-10.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2

(Note that this list is not necessarily complete since it won't include 
packages which have not yet had their License tags audited.)

Regards, Joe