On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 03:13:01AM +0000, Clint Adams wrote: > On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > > That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that > > I write, but rather GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1. > > So if someone takes your LGPLv2.1-only software and adds GPLv2-only > code to it, do you feel similarly betrayed because you can't take > that code back?
Yes; that ruins the whole purpose of choosing of the LGPL -- not only does the GPL not allow proprietary software to link against it (which is, for me, the whole point of licensing a library under the LGPL), but a change from LGPL to GPL is also oneway. The only situation I find such a license transformation morally ok is when taking parts of the code to incorporate in a project (let's say that a library contains a neat utility function that might be useful in another project. Linking against a library just for the sake of a single utility function is pretty over the top, but borrowing that code (properly credited, of course) feels perfectly fine. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <t...@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (\ // ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140106150732.gd25...@hirohito.acc.umu.se
