***BOGO*** Re: Move to LGPL3

["Brian J. Tarricone" <bjt23@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 16:03 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
>> "You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public 
>> License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. [...] 
>> (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public 
>> License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if
>> you 
>> wish.)"
>>
>> Personally I think this clause is kinda ridiculous, but it's there, 
>> nonetheless. 
> 
> It is there because implicitely LGPL code linked with GPL code becomes
> GPL as a whole[1], just because LGPL allow setting restriction that the
> GPL does not allow (hence the "Lesser-" part in the name).
> 
> Similarly how the v2+ is compatible with v3+ via the upgrade part of the
> licence.
> 
> Hub
> 
> [1] Where are talking about a whole software as it is being
> redistributed.

Getting a little OT, but... the issue I have is that, unless I'm reading 
it wrong, if I release something under LGPLv2.1-only (i.e., NO "or any 
later version" wording), then someone can still relicense my code under 
GPLv3, or even GPLv2-or-later. (But, strangely, one couldn't relicense 
as LGPLv3.)  I'm not terribly concerned about being able to relicense 
LGPL to GPL *of the same version*, but discarding my wishes to stay with 
the same (L)GPL version is not ok (to me, anyway).

	-brian

_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list