Re: Move to LGPL3

["Brian J. Tarricone" <bjt23 cornell edu>]

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