Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?

[Simon Josefsson]

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic.fr> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 02:10:04PM +0200,
>  Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org> wrote 
>  a message of 27 lines which said:
>
>> Is echoping licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv2-or-later? 
>
> v2 only
>
>> I can't find anything conclusive in the echoping sources (probably
>> something you want to fix :)).
>
> COPYING says:
>
> 		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> 		       Version 2, June 1991
>
> To me, in the absence of other mention, it means v2 only.
>
> COPYING later says:
>
> Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
> "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
> conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
> the Free Software Foundation.
>
> And the magical sentence "any later version" does not appear in the
> source code (only in autotools-generated files).

I didn't see a specific version number mentioned in the _program_ (there
are no license headers in the *.c files).  The license continues:

  If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General
  Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
  Software Foundation.

FWIW, adding a license headers to each file (and making sure it specify
the version of the GPL) would help to clarify the intended license.
Including a verbatim copy of the GPL doesn't mean the program is
automatically licensed under the GPL.  There needs to be some statement
that binds the program with the license.

Anyway, I think we have established a long list of GPLv2-only projects
that use GnuTLS that needs to be studied more closely before we make any
decision to move to LGPLv3+.

/Simon