Dear GiNaC team, first of all, thanks so much for your powerful projects GiNaC and CLN! Thanks so much for making them open to us all! Based on your projects (and others), I have developed a nice multi-physics finite element framework, which I would like to share with the world soon. Of course, I will also go for the GPL, but I get conflicts, since I also have another dependency (pygmsh) using GPL v3, which is not compatible with GPL v2 of GiNaC and CLN. I total, I have to satisfy BSD-3-Clause, BSD-2-Clause, MIT, LGPL-2.1-only, LGPL-2.1-or-later, GPL-2.0-or-later, GPL-2.0-only and GPL-3.0-only. This configuration is not compatible under any outbound licence, unless I leave out either the GPL-2.0-only dependencies (GiNaC & CLN) or the GPL-3.0-only dependency (pygmsh). Of course, I have read your statement in the FAQ: ---- I don't like the GPL. May I have another license, please? A: The idea to dual-license GiNaC has been proposed a number of times. It has, however, been squarely rejected by some developers. Asking for a permission to dual-license it is likely going to waste your valuable time. That being said: The GPL is a good license. Why not directly put derived work under the GPL, too? ---- I am not asking for a dual-license, I support the ideas of the GPL myself, but I just wonder whether there are any plans to go for GPL-2.0-or-later at any time? If not, I have to get rid of the GPL-3.0 dependency, i.e. write my own interface to gmsh, before I can publish my work under GPL-2.0-only as well. Thanks for any information, help or suggestions in this issue! Best regards, Christian