On 12-03-07 at 09:25pm, Julien Cristau wrote: > 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. I was puzzled too at first, but notice that it not only changes to dual-licensing but also tightens from LGPL to GPL. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature