On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 07:53:06 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > After all, the 3-clause BSD license is way more permissive than the > > LGPL and does not include any restriction not present in the LGPL. > > As a consequence, I would say that offering the LGPL as a second choice > > is totally moot, once you have already offered the 3-clause BSD license > > as a first choice... > > What about the situation where someone chooses the LGPL and adds their > changes under the LGPL only? I think the same can be done while choosing the 3-clause BSD license for the original work. I mean: suppose I receive a work under the 3-clause BSD license (without any dual-licensing scheme); the BSD license allows me to add changes under the GNU LGPL and distribute the resulting modified work. My parts will be licensed under the terms of the GNU LGPL, the parts coming from the original work will stay under the 3-clause BSD; the two licenses are mutually compatible, so the distribution is legally allowed; the effective license for the resulting modified work will be the GNU LGPL, but anyone extracting the parts coming from the original work will get them under the 3-clause BSD license. Am I missing something? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgp5rjkcGah0f.pgp
Description: PGP signature