On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 21:03:25 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> writes: > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 20:35:53 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > > >> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it > >> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. > > > > So maybe that's a stupid question, but... Why? You didn't have enough > > license headaches? > > Well, why not? There was a reason the FSF published the LGPLv3 after > all. Maybe... > Others have analyzed the reasons than I can (see for example [1] > and [2]). The downsides (e.g., changing the license headers, and > discussions like this one) appears small in comparison to me. > It's not so much the discussion as the increased incompatibility with users of your library, which seems kind of counter productive to me. And I'm not sure how many of the (perceived) benefits of v3 for people who aren't lawyers are still valid if you keep dual-licensing under GPLv2 anyway. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature