GPLv3 is not a very good license for libraries, it imposes restrictions on everyone who tries to use your library. Thus reducing adoption.
Have you considered using a strategy similiar to what libgit2 has done? It allows your library to remain GPLv3, all your contributions remain GPLv3 but other software can link with your library as they please. This solves the incompatibilities between many licenses and GPL.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll consider it. However, I need to do some research as to whether Apache or MIT is viable at all considering that the library is built on top of GDB which is GPL-licensed.
GPLv3 is not a very good license for libraries, it imposes restrictions on everyone who tries to use your library. Thus reducing adoption.
Have you considered using a strategy similiar to what libgit2 has done? It allows your library to remain GPLv3, all your contributions remain GPLv3 but other software can link with your library as they please. This solves the incompatibilities between many licenses and GPL.
libgit2 license
If you disagree with this, please close this issue.