[Bug-gnulib] Re: licenses again

[Bruno Haible]

Three remarks:

1) It's not only "standard" functionality which is LGPLed. For example,
vasnprintf is not standard but it is LGPL because I needed it in libintl.

2) Not only the FSF, as the copyright holder, can put GPLed gnulib code under
LGPL. The author also can, regardless of RMS's opinion. See copyright assignment
section 1(d): "FSF agrees to grant back to Developer, and does hereby grant,
non-exclusive, royalty-free and non-cancellable rights to use the
Works (i.e., Developer's changes and/or enhancements, not the Program
that they enhance), as Developer sees fit"

3)
> One aspect of this can be broken down into this question: would you
> accept a rewritten, under LGPL, module of something that is part of
> today's gnulib, but under GPL?
>
> Just some thoughts.  Perhaps we can ask RMS if he has any thoughts on
> this.

There is precedent to it.

GNU libintl was GPL'ed. Then the GNOME project said: "If you don't put
libintl under LGPL, we'll write an LGPLed clone of it." Then RMS decided
to put GNU libintl under LGPL.

Bruno