ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi!
>
> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> We should probably have some kind of policy regarding licenses. Here are
>> some options that I can think of:
>
> I'd say leave PD code PD, and move GPLv2+ files to GPLv3+, with clear
> license headers.  (My understanding is that there are currently only PD
> and GPLv2+ files, right?)  Top-level `COPYING' can be that of GPLv3+.
>
> Thank you for taking care of this!

I was going to say LGPL, but I think a mix of PD and GPLv3+ is fine.  I
see the point of full GPL, but also think that it's good to respect the
earlier intent of those who place things in PD or MIT-style license.

It's not like there will be a horde of companies selling closed-source
derivative copies of guile-lib with extra features...