On 8 Jul 1999, Rob Tillotson wrote: > > (Just in case anyone wonders, one of my packages -- both upstream and > Debian -- falls into category (1) above, specifically because I > thought that it was likely that RMS would someday decide to sabotage > the LGPL. I may be stuck with using it, but I'm not about to open my > code up to random relicensing by saying "or any future version"...) >
There are multiple negative effects to doing this: - your code can't be reused in packages that say "2.1 or any future version" which many will, sooner or later. - if you disappear, and major flaws are discovered in version 2, then the license can't be changed. FWIW a new GPL version is in the works which fixes several legal issues; this is the intent of the "future version" clause. The same could happen with LGPL. Then people would be stuck with the bad version for your library or app (and there would be a mass transition to "2.1 or any future," making it impossible to borrow your code). - if there are major contributors to your code who disappear, the license can't be changed - because you'd need their permission for their part of the code. And say he does tighten up the LGPL - people can still choose to use version 2 for your code. So no big deal. And he certainly isn't going to _loosen_ the LGPL. So, I don't think a vague worry about RMS going loopy should outweigh the concrete, immediate, and demonstrable disadvantages of doing this. FWIW, Havoc
