Licensing change: binutils GPLv2 -> GPLv3

[Hans de Goede]

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 19:45 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Upstream binutils switched to GPLv3+ already more than a month ago.
>> While I guess I can delay switch to binutils-2.17.50.0.18 for a few
>> days, I can't do that forever.
>>
>> Under GPLv3+ will be licensed both the programs (I don't imagine
>> how that could be a problem) but also libfd and libopcodes.
>> Checking current rawhide, following packages BuildRequire
>> binutils-devel and therefore very likely link against libbfd
>> or libopcodes.  Can the maintainers check if their licensing
>> isn't incompatible with GPLv3+ licensed libbfd.a resp. libopcodes.a?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> 
>> frysk
> 
> GPLv2 with exception 
> 
> This is almost certainly a problem. Looks to be linking against
> libopcodes.a.
> 

Has anyone tried contacting upstream? I've contacted upstream for all my GPLv2 
(only) packages and sofar all who have replied have promised me that the next 
version will be either GPLv2+ or "GPLv2 and GPLv3" (luckily they were all 
pretty much one man projects, so upstream has the power to do this). One 
upstream has even done a new release with just the copyrightheaders changed 
esp. for this. Sometimes it takes some explaining why GPLv2 only is going to be 
a problem once glibc hits LGPLv3, but usually upstreams are very willing to 
help in my experience.

The only problematic packages I currently have are goffice and gnumeric (gnome 
really should have kept a better watch there GRRR).

Regards,

Hans